[HN Gopher] Apple asks suppliers to shift AirPods, Beats product...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple asks suppliers to shift AirPods, Beats production to India
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 250 points
Date : 2022-10-05 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asia.nikkei.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (asia.nikkei.com)
| keewee7 wrote:
| Does India have a vocational training and education system like
| China and Germany?
|
| You can't build a modern factory with just college-educated
| engineers and no-skill workers with only primary education. You
| need skilled workers who have been trained as technicians, PLC
| programmers, CNC operators etc.
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| Industrial Training Institutes ( ITI)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_training_institut...
|
| And Diplomas also referred as Polytechnic institutes are some
| alternatives to the traditional 4 yr Engg schools in India.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_(India)
| programmer_dude wrote:
| Yes India has vocational training institutes (established
| 1950):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_training_institute
|
| Don't know how these compare with institutes in other
| countries.
| rednerrus wrote:
| Peter Zeihan at work...
| calacatta wrote:
| The Oracle of Davenport...
| kepler1 wrote:
| Some _assembly_ may shift to India but the manufacture of the key
| components sure as isn 't, correct? You've just shifted a part of
| the chain, not one of the critical steps upstream of it.
| hinkley wrote:
| It takes a long time to turn a big boat.
| bmer wrote:
| The skeptic in me wonders to what extent this is due to
| strengthening of labour laws in China; if India's labor laws are
| relatively weaker, and it provides better optics (a "democracy"!)
| then that might explain Apple's move?
|
| I don't know enough about the situation, but this is just a
| thought that comes to mind.
| marianatom wrote:
| Nothing of the sort; it's due to the worsening condition to run
| a business in China, namely the abrupt shutdown of electricity
| to factories, abrupt covid shutdown of factories and loss of
| output while still needing to pay out wages, and worsening
| economic conditions. you can see some of that in this video
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPptD2eBgwo. In this video, a
| factory owner complains of an abrupt and unannounced
| electricity halt leading to machinery stopping in mid
| operation, and another factory owner crying that she has paid
| out 1M in wages after having to take a 3M loan out, and having
| so much unsold inventory.
| et-al wrote:
| I don't think that's being overly skeptical. It's been known
| that as labor prices increase, companies move factories to
| cheaper locations. Seam-sealed technical jackets used to be
| made in China, but now they're made in Vietnam. If prices in
| Vietnam rise to a certain point, companies will look at less
| developed countries.
|
| But to ktta's point, another reason Apple did this was to
| minimize the Indian tariffs.
| malshe wrote:
| Why did you write democracy in quotes?
| shadeslayer_ wrote:
| Because India is not a democracy :)
| malshe wrote:
| Explain how it is not a democracy.
| sfe22 wrote:
| Democracy means people rule. India has rulers afaik.
| malshe wrote:
| > India has rulers afaik.
|
| That means you know nothing. List a few Indian rulers for
| us please.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| India is an electoral autocracy.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944
|
| The most robust part of India's "democracy" is its voting
| system which is among the most accessible in the world
| and is likely one of the best in the world.
|
| By all other metrics and measures, India is a feudal
| state where laws are great on paper but terrible
| otherwise. People should - rightfully so - be wary of
| labelling India a democracy.
| malshe wrote:
| > India is an electoral autocracy.
|
| You forgot to write that it is according to "Sweden-based
| V-Dem Institute."
| valarauko wrote:
| That's the assessment of an NGO, which may have some
| merit to it, and maybe not.
|
| To quote the same article,
|
| > Prof Mukherjee says most non-academics would be
| incredulous that a handful of research assistants and
| country experts get to decide that a country is an
| "electoral autocracy" while hundreds of millions of that
| country's citizens would disagree.
|
| > "So really this is an instance of academic discourse
| and concepts operating at a considerable distance from
| lived experience. The operational concepts across the two
| domains are very different."
| ktta wrote:
| India's labor laws are pretty strong, and that's the only
| reason why it was put off till now. Infact, take a look at
| this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/wistron-
| violence-w...
|
| That wouldn't have happened in China, and it was actually a
| detractor for additional manufacturing to be done in India.
|
| I believe this push is not for additional cost cutting but to
| avoid the tariffs placed on imported goods.
| achenatx wrote:
| we should be giving tax breaks to move mfg to south/central
| america. We would make them rich and possibly illegal aliens.
| christkv wrote:
| I rather be dependent on a democracy than a totalitarian state so
| a great first move. Now move some production to Europe and the us
| and we are talking.
| kranke155 wrote:
| It's hard to see how much India will remain a democracy and it
| does have its problems. But certainly it seems far less of a
| revisionist power than China.
| achow wrote:
| This is new.
|
| You mean the current right wing ruling party? It has a very
| large vocal, visible and genuine support from large
| population of India. That is democracy by any definition.
| This support is for progressive policies and anti-corruption
| principles.
|
| Not all section of population agree on progress at the cost
| of right wing philosophies, but that again is in line with
| the rules of democracy.
| kranke155 wrote:
| I've heard mixed things from Indians. I suppose the
| question might *not* be how much it remains a democracy -
| you are correct that the ruling party appears to have wide
| popular support - but how limited some freedoms might be
| for non Hindus.
| programmer_dude wrote:
| Please name some of these limitations.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _You mean the current right wing ruling party? It has a
| very large vocal, visible and genuine support from large
| population of India... This support is for progressive
| policies and anti-corruption principles._
|
| It is vile, divisive, and hate-filled politics that the
| masses have turned to.
|
| Cognitive dissonance can be quite a thing.
| naruvimama wrote:
| smoldesu wrote:
| Democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive.
| I think most people's gripes aren't with their political
| leanings, but the way they chose to respond to things like
| the Farmer Protest (where Modi's administration basically
| admitted they were wrong). Stifling communication and
| censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler
| does, regardless of their party affiliation.
| shmde wrote:
| Treading on slippery slope are we. You talk about democracy
| but the USA itself is a two party democracy not a true
| democracy at heart. In India you can start your own political
| party and contest in elections. Since it got independence
| from the Britishers, India has stayed a democracy and will
| hopefully remain so. (Unless maybe CIA organises a coup
| d'etat)
| cronix wrote:
| If you elect representatives to vote on your behalf, it's
| not a "true democracy."
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| It's not that simple in the US.
|
| For example, many states have proposition systems which is
| a direct democracy: the residents can vote directly on laws
| themselves. There's good and bad things about this, but
| overall I think it's good - it's a way around a state
| legislature trying to do wildly unpopular things.
| Qtips87 wrote:
| pyuser583 wrote:
| There are very concerning things happening in India, but it
| is a very democratic country.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Just the other day indians were blaming their pollution on the
| west because we moved manufacturing to that country and china.
| I fail to understand why we would want to continue outsourcing
| to india all things considered.
| [deleted]
| shmde wrote:
| > Just the other day indians were blaming their pollution on
| the west because we moved manufacturing to that country and
| china
|
| Well isn't it true ? You act like people are lying when they
| say the west pays countries to take off their garbage and
| dump it in their own nation. With all the things that USA
| imports from other countries as manufacturing it inside the
| US will decrease their profits. Classic Murica, offshore all
| the dirty work to the east, blame India and China for rising
| pollution when the final product is ironically coming back to
| USA and pat itself on the back for cutting down carbon
| emissions.
| pb7 wrote:
| If you pay someone to dispose of waste and they just dump
| it in the ocean and pocket the money, what do you call
| that? They can just refuse to accept the deal or charge
| enough for it to be feasible to dispose of it sustainably.
| alehlopeh wrote:
| That's what we call recycling.
| jxramos wrote:
| It feels like I've been finding a lot more products showing up
| with Made in India tags on them. Sheets, hand tools, car tools,
| clothing. Pretty good stuff.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Furniture too. So much of West Elm + Crate and Barrel's
| hardwood furniture comes from India now and I love it. They
| have very attractive wood.
| Qtips87 wrote:
| Apple should shift its production line to Vietnam instead.
| Vietnam is close to the supply chain, has better logistic
| infrastructure and its workforce is much more productive than
| India.
| ignoramous wrote:
| No one's saying they won't. ASEAN and South Asia are both
| credible destinations. What works in India's favour, I'd
| reckon, is the abundance of human capital.
| Qtips87 wrote:
| I have been hearing this for many years that India has
| abundance of human capital but reality paints a different
| picture. Fact is many Western companies that have set up
| manufacturing shop in India eventually moved out because it
| was losing money. Ford is a good example.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| Related, "Vedanta, Foxconn to invest $19.5 billion in India's
| Gujarat for chip, display project"
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/india/vedanta-foxconn-sign-mou...
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Keen observers of Chinese industry will note that there is also a
| significant threat of IP theft[1] to Apple by continuing to
| invest in advanced manufacturing over the long term in China.
|
| Apple hasn't just outsourced manufacturing to China. They are on
| the cutting edge of many-a-technology , at least commercially
| available tech, and they ship enormous amounts of know-how.
|
| Combine this with the Chinese Communist Party's aims to extend
| industry as an arm of state policy with the likes of Huawei
| getting into telecommunications and IT hardware, it's hard to see
| a future for Apple not getting overwhelmed by the competitive
| threat of a lower cost adversary.
|
| [1]https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/18/huawei-cloning-
| ap...
| postalrat wrote:
| Anywhere, just not the USA
| codegeek wrote:
| Numbers don't add up. There is a reason you have to pay 200K to
| great engineers in USA vs say 80-k100K in India (which is like
| the top 1% of salary there and only the best get it). So yea,
| it is Capitalism 101.
| ignoramous wrote:
| I mean, this is a company which stoves way money in tax havens.
| Apple may be incorporated in the US, but it is pretty much a
| global company. If the US decides to clamp down on free-
| wheeling capitalists taking advantage of globalism, sure, but
| until then, it is a fool's errand to presume a business of such
| scale is going to leave profits on the table because
| _nationalism_.
| yreg wrote:
| But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama
| interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to
| make iPhones in the United States?
|
| Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in
| America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones,
| 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last
| year were manufactured overseas.
|
| Why can't that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
|
| Mr. Jobs's reply was unambiguous. "Those jobs aren't coming
| back," he said, according to another dinner guest.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-an...
| arberx wrote:
| There was a Bloomberg article saying that 98% of Apple production
| is in China, and it would take 8 years to move 10% of it to other
| countries[1].
|
| Having the largest American company entirely dependent on China
| is definitely not a good thing, given current tensions.
|
| [1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-30/apple-
| s-t...
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| Is Apple really that important though? Sure, consumers love
| their Apple products but there are certainly plenty of
| alternatives for just about everything they make. If the US
| lost China as a trade partner, the entire consumer electronics
| industry would be in big trouble.
| arberx wrote:
| > Is Apple really that important though?
|
| Yes, this is not even arguable. A national security concern
| as well.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Friendly reminder that Apple is the largest component of
| SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY). Most stocks are under 2%
| representation except Apple and a handful of others.
| Top 10 Holdings (27.37% of Total Assets) Name
| Symbol % Assets Apple Inc AAPL 5.90% Microsoft
| Corp MSFT 5.60% Amazon.com Inc AMZN 4.05%
| Facebook Inc A FB 2.29% Alphabet Inc A GOOGL 2.02%
| Alphabet Inc Class C GOOG 1.96% Berkshire Hathaway
| Inc Class B BRK.B 1.45% Tesla Inc TSLA 1.44%
| NVIDIA Corp NVDA 1.37% JPMorgan Chase & Co JPM 1.29%
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/holdings/
| amelius wrote:
| Nationalize it then.
| pb7 wrote:
| How would that help anything?
| amelius wrote:
| It would solve the problem that if Apple decides to do
| anything that goes against national interest (they are
| free to do so) then the government/voters would be able
| to do something against it.
| pb7 wrote:
| Your solution to protecting ourselves from being
| dependent on an authoritarian government is by being
| authoritarian to our own first? How would nationalizing
| it help one bit if China decided to block exports?
| svnpenn wrote:
| It is arguable. I would be fine if Apple crashed and
| burned. I don't use any Apple products. My company does,
| but Apple folded, I'm sure we would just move to Android or
| something.
|
| Apple is the only company I have ever seen, that doesn't
| give business discounts. We pay the same as any Joe off the
| street. Even Microsoft doesn't do that. Fuck Apple.
| mikestew wrote:
| Your personal beef with a company is not a basis for
| making it "arguable".
|
| And Apple gave even my teensy little company (when it was
| running) discounts. They have (or at least had) a
| business program which required some proof of business
| license (DUN, or summat?), and enjoy your discount. I'd
| look it up, but parent isn't going to, so I won't bother.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| You seem to forget that literally almost every Android
| phone is also made in China and would be immediately hit
| with the same sanctions. Every Android phone also has
| parts made in Taiwan, just like the iPhone, an area that
| would almost certainly be blockaded in the event of a
| conflict.
|
| As for your complaints about business discounts... I see
| it as a win for the consumer that they don't have to be a
| "business" to artificially pay less. Fuck that.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| huh? Samsung _is_ the Android market...made in Vietnam
|
| afaik they exited China manufacturing completely in 2019
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If there was a skirmish, Vietnam is just south of China,
| is communist just like China, and would likely find
| themselves quickly aligned with China over the US. So
| much so they may as well be the same level of risk.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Apple gives business discounts.
|
| https://www.apple.com/retail/business/
| ascendantlogic wrote:
| Apple not giving you business discounts doesn't affect
| how critical it is to the US from economic and security
| standpoints.
| pb7 wrote:
| It sounds like you have a personal beef with Apple
| because you don't get special treatment. This has nothing
| to do with its importance to the US, which is extremely
| high.
| Bloating wrote:
| So says Jim Jones (Drink the Apple flavored Kool-Aid)
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Haha yes?
|
| Everything is replaceable but it is a major business. Huge
| ramifications in America if they had a major supply
| disruption. It's not about the availability of glass boxes
| with fruit logos on the back.
|
| The iPhone and other products obviously brings in a lot of
| money and supports a lot of jobs, indirectly too like through
| case design and apps and stuff. But China uses apple as an
| example of how they work with America - so much so that Tim
| Cook gets meetings with presidents and diplomats. And its
| supply chain is one of chinas major employers, so it would
| come at a steep cost to China. A loss of apple would likely
| impact other businesses soon after. China wouldn't kill the
| golden goose without slaughtering the others first, or using
| them as an example of what's to come.
|
| Even beyond the iPhone as a product directly, MANY people
| (especially rich important influential ones) are major
| shareholders. So are pension funds and retirement funds and
| index funds. If apple had an "oops no iPhone for a year"
| moment that would rock the financial world way beyond their
| actual direct market value. They're so big that their crash
| would likely slash the entire tech sector and with it the S&P
| 500 and with it all the index funds and with it everyone's
| retirement accounts (you can see how that ripple would
| continue to everyone's detriment). The US government has an
| interest in keeping them safe for that alone. They can lose
| market share and be replaced over time, but a geopolitical
| shock like China closing their ports to apple would be a
| major event the government has an interest in avoiding.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| AAPL is 7.3% or so of the SP500.
| sfeqcq wrote:
| > If the US lost China as a trade partner
|
| Let's not forget what happened to the world's supply chains
| when the Port of Shanghai slowed down due to China's zero-
| Covid policy.
|
| "Shanghai lockdown exposes global supply chain strains"
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/9318db50-e0c3-4a27-9230-55ff59bcc.
| ..
|
| If it just stopped... Yipe.
| autoexec wrote:
| No doubt that if apple suddenly and without warning closed
| shop tomorrow, never made another ianything, and pulled the
| plug on every last one of their services the world would keep
| on turning and neither the US or China would collapse. It
| wouldn't be pretty, a lot of people would lose money, but
| we'd survive and move on.
| iepathos wrote:
| Or it's a very good thing for keeping tensions under control
| with both countries benefiting drastically from keeping the
| relationship functional.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Or it's a very good thing for keeping tensions under
| control with both countries benefiting drastically from
| keeping the relationship functional.
|
| IMHO, that's a free market myth made "true" through constant
| repetition. It breaks down if one or more parties stops
| prioritizing things like a free marketer.
|
| And "keeping tensions under control" could translate to
| "appease the CCP and give in to its demands." It controls the
| real (physical) assets, as well as most of the human capital.
| Its adversaries are democracies, which means they're often
| far too focused on the people's parochial, short-term whims
| (e.g. failing to take strategic action because they're afraid
| of losing votes if those actions make iPhones more
| expensive).
|
| The CCP has also has the benefit of learning from several of
| Russia's mistakes. They'll probably force their demands more
| slowly and persistently, so as to not galvanize their
| opponents.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Exactly. It was this theory that allowed the West to trade
| with Russia regardless of her human rights abuses, but it
| still didn't deter a pointlessly costly war.
| unity1001 wrote:
| If countries are still trading with the US despite US
| murdering 1 million in Iraq and even as of this very
| moment killing whomever cant pay for healthcare, there is
| no problem with any other country trading with any other
| country.
|
| ...
|
| Double standards is not a good habit.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| The argument could be made that it worked pretty well for
| over 20 years. Russia played fairly nice with the west
| pretty much up until they invaded Crimea.
|
| It'd obviously be a mistake to say that economic
| interconnectivity totally _prevents_ war, but the fact
| that wars break out doesn 't falsify the notion that it
| might make conflict less common on average. The west's
| relationship with Russia and China has certainly been
| less rocky over the past 30 years than its relationship
| with the Soviet Union ever was.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > The argument could be made that it worked pretty well
| for over 20 years
|
| Uhm, this isn't the first time Russia invaded Ukraine in
| the past decade. Remember when they invaded and took
| Crimea?
|
| Also, they've been fucking with elections in other
| countries, like with Brexit and Trump. There was also the
| Wirecard scandal that they've been associated with.
| They've done massive amounts of damage internationally.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Also, they've been fucking with elections in other
| countries
|
| Sure, but this is much more low level than a war. The US
| also messes with other countries elections & politics,
| including Euromaidan in Ukraine.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| > Remember when they invaded and took Crimea?
|
| Yes, I mentioned it. That was in 2014 - 22 years after
| the fall of the Soviet Union.
|
| Russia's antics have been damaging but child's play
| compared to the cold war. The US and the Soviet Union
| were engaged in proxy wars, insurgencies, coups and
| counter coups across the globe pretty much non-stop for
| nearly 50 years, all the while pointing two order-of-
| magnitude larger nuclear arsenals at each other.
|
| Economic interdependence obviously didn't stop Russia
| from eventually going off the deep end. But it probably
| helped keep relations cool for quite a while.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > "appease the CCP and give in to its demands."
|
| If countries giving into US demands is not something bad,
| then giving into "CCP demands" is not bad either.
|
| ...
|
| The doublespeak and 'everyone except us is evil" mentality
| in Anglosphere is amazing.
| nindalf wrote:
| Yeah this makes sense. Kinda like how Europe depends on
| Russia for oil and gas and Russia imports a number of high
| tech goods from Europe. That's why conflict between the two
| is highly unlikely.
| yreg wrote:
| The fact that this time it didn't work out with Russia
| doesn't negate the game theory.
| Bombthecat wrote:
| Germany thought that works with Russia...
|
| Well, now you see how well that worked
| unity1001 wrote:
| It worked very well until the US decided that it should
| drive apart Russia and Germany to remove Germany as a
| competitor.
|
| https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/02/michael-hudson-
| ameri...
| caycep wrote:
| maybe it's a balance - you can keep some dependency on china,
| just not 98%...
| collegeburner wrote:
| has the "mcdonalds diplomacy" thing really worked out?
| because we've seen countries that were getting better (Iran)
| fall and countries that should have gotten better (Russia)
| fail to do so.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Definitely the logic that drove Germany to make it's entire
| industrial economy dependent on gas from the east over the
| last several decades.
|
| Not saying there is no merit to the logic, just that it can
| backfire or malfunction unexpectedly.
| Bloating wrote:
| Save the Environment, IMPORT
|
| Demand Living Wages, IMPORT
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The US needs Apple, China doesn't need Apple. That asymmetry
| can be exploited.
| sfeqcq wrote:
| Are you sure about that? A million people losing their jobs
| can have an impact.
|
| "It is the world's largest technology manufacturer and
| service provider. While headquartered in Taiwan, the
| company is the largest private employer in the People's
| Republic of China and one of the largest employers
| worldwide."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
|
| And that doesn't count all the companies that make the
| subassemblies and parts for Foxconn either.
| vaidhy wrote:
| Yes, but Foxconn is not Apple subsidiary. Apple is just
| one of their customers. Saying million would lose job
| because Apple moved out of China seems like hyperbole
| from the other side.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Apple is by far their largest customer.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Does the US need Apple?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| They need Apple in the sense that AAPL is represented in
| many different financial instruments, products and
| portfolios, and it tanking would have consequences
| outside of shareholders just losing value.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| How many people does Apple employ in America vs those
| employed in China (indirectly)?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| How much does the financial health and economy in the US
| depend on AAPL maintaining value versus the same in
| China?
| Bloating wrote:
| I don't need Apple
| scarface74 wrote:
| Where do you think your Android phone is made?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Neither do I, but Apple tanking would have consequences
| for the US economy.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| this
| nostromo wrote:
| This is exactly what Germany thought it was doing when it
| forged energy deals with Russia.
| lnsru wrote:
| Not really. Russia put enormous effort to bribe German
| politicians. Ex chancellor for example. I don't think, that
| China is bribing Apple. They go there voluntarily.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| This was one argument the corrupt politicians used to
| justify their actions.
| abraae wrote:
| Energy comes out of the ground. Exploiting something that's
| already there with very little value add. You can't buy
| energy from just anyone.
|
| Building airpods is an industrial process. All value add.
| You can do it anywhere, one factories are set up, workers
| trained etc.
| rkagerer wrote:
| ...anywhere that has the required local supply logistics,
| low labour cost, etc.
|
| If it could truly be done anywhere it would still be
| happening in the US.
| ziddoap wrote:
| I think the point being made is that if Apple/whoever was
| willing to pay for it, you can setup the supply chain and
| get the workers wherever you want. It might cost more,
| sure, but it _can_ be done.
|
| However, you can't just extract energy from somewhere
| that doesn't have it. No matter how much money you want
| to sink into it. If there's no oil/NG/whatever, that's
| that. Trillions of dollars wont make it appear there.
| Trillions of dollars does let you setup a nice supply
| chain and labor force in the US though.
| lossolo wrote:
| It took less than a year to secure most of the needed gas
| in EU from other places, OP says it takes 8 years to
| switch only 10% of apple production.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Energy comes out of the ground.
|
| Nearly all of the energy available on Earth comes from
| our sun, including all fossil fuels, shallow geothermal,
| biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, wind and solar energies. The
| remainder came from other suns, such as nuclear and deep
| geothermal.
| themitigating wrote:
| Then why didn't that work with russia, they have ruined their
| economy for a war
| ketzo wrote:
| That is a very complicated question, but in short:
|
| Russia's economy is supported by oil. Oil is pretty much
| the one thing that they've still been consistently able to
| export.
|
| China's economy is based on exporting lots and lots and
| lots of manufactured goods. Many of them are essential, but
| many of them could be banned tomorrow.
| jacobolus wrote:
| It's not a complicated question. It's a very simple
| question with a simple answer: one man (Vladimir Putin)
| wanted to go to war and made the (initial and ongoing)
| decision despite it being a clearly terrible idea to
| anyone else watching.
|
| How Russia got itself to the point where one person has
| consolidated all authority, surrounded himself with
| corrupt sycophants, and cannot accurately gather or
| integrate information from the rest of the society is the
| complicated question here. It's a pretty good
| demonstration for anyone watching around the world that
| unchecked power can lead to disastrous decisions. It
| should inspire us to stand up for democracy and against
| corruption and consolidation of wealth and power in our
| own societies.
|
| It's impossible to determine Putin's personal motivations
| from outside; the best we can do is speculate. My
| speculation is that involves some combination of (a)
| doing what he thinks will best maintain internal
| political control, (b) satisfying an egoistical urge for
| historical glory, and (c) a narcissistic belief that
| others must bow to his personal whims and a raging
| narcissistic grudge when they do not.
| Maursault wrote:
| > It's impossible to determine Putin's personal
| motivations from outside;
|
| Entitlement. The closest you came was the descriptor
| "narcissistic" in (c). Narcissism is supposed to be a
| rare condition, but it is found everywhere. It is easiest
| to understand leaders like Putin, Jong-un, Xi, DeSantis
| and Trump, if framed in psychological terms like
| narcissism with symptoms of entitlement, grandiosity,
| attention seeking, arrogance, bullying, lack of empathy,
| and a fear of criticism.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rurp wrote:
| Russia has even put their energy exports at risk though.
| They are already trading at a discount and things could
| get much worse if the war continues to escalate. If Putin
| advances to using nukes or mass slaughtering of
| civilians, things will eventually reach a point where the
| neutral countries finally cut ties.
|
| Russia starting a nuclear war would be bad for China,
| India and others; there's some point at which they'll cut
| off Russian trade.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Russia _has_ been mass slaughtering citizens.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2022/09/22/new-
| mas...
| okasaki wrote:
| Yes and they're taking babies out of incubators and
| leaving them to die.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| The point being that Russia would be more desperate due
| to fewer options? Not trying to argue, just curious.
| ketzo wrote:
| The opposite, actually -- people NEED Russia's oil. They
| don't have the option to stop buying it without a _lot_
| of pain. So Russia's biggest money-fountain has stayed on
| despite sanctions.
|
| Meanwhile, China exports a lot of things that people
| don't need. You can turn those off quicker.
|
| Again -- huge oversimplifications. But I think reasonably
| solid mental model.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Meanwhile, China exports a lot of things that people
| don't need. You can turn those off quicker.
|
| It's not like that's _all_ they export. They export a lot
| of essential things, and cutting them off would probably
| far more economically disruptive to their customers than
| to them. They 're store shelves won't be empty, and given
| their political system they can probably deal with the
| fallout much more effectively.
|
| There are also a lot of alternative producers of oil,
| while there's no other advanced manufacturing giant on
| the scale of China that people can shift their orders to.
| It would make the COVID supply chain difficulties look
| like a joke.
| jm4 wrote:
| In no particular order:
|
| - Russia overestimated their position
|
| - Russia believed the war would be over in a few days
| (which many in the West also believed)
|
| - Russia assumed Europe would keep buying their oil (which
| has happened to an extent)
|
| - Russia believes they can "out-suffer" the West and we
| will crack after a few months
|
| - Russia believed the West was too polarized to reach
| consensus on an effective response
|
| In short, Russia had a bad read on the situation and shot
| themselves in the foot. They thought they were in a
| position to impose their will without a fight or a
| significant response from the West.
|
| We have seen a little bit of the same attitude from China
| the past several years - decadent West on the decline,
| democracy is flawed, etc. - but I have to think they are
| smart enough to realize they have been underestimating us.
| At a minimum, I think it pushes back their timeline for
| when they believed they would become the world's premier
| power. Hopefully, that buys us all some time to cool off
| and find diplomatic solutions.
| prewett wrote:
| I don't think diplomatic solutions are possible when one
| side says "this land that we don't currently occupy is
| ours", especially when the people in charge view
| admitting they were mistaking as a existential personal
| failure. The best you can hope for is balance-of-power
| detente.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| A democracy is underestimated when the problems are known
| and shared honestly instead of being hidden by a dictator
| with a big ego.
|
| Both can prosper when things go good, it's when shit hits
| the fan that you notice the difference.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| A democracy with persuasive leaders is likely to prevail
| over a dictatorship where no one dares to speak their
| mind - as in The Emperor's New Clothes.
| friedman23 wrote:
| How could anyone say this seriously after recent events?
| michaelt wrote:
| Under Merkel, Germany got 50% of their natural gas from
| Russia - with the intention of normalising relations and
| keeping tensions under control.
|
| Then Russia decided they could invade a neighbour they claim
| isn't a real country - and now Germany is in for a very cold
| winter, and gas shortages are sending bills skyrocketing all
| across Europe.
|
| If trade was supposed to stop Russia invading its neighbours,
| it hasn't worked very well.
| lmm wrote:
| Well, the theory relies on assuming rationality from the
| Russian leadership. If a madman wants to invade a
| neighbour, there are few reliable ways to prevent that.
| unity1001 wrote:
| "Everyone but the US is evil and crazy"
| jamiek88 wrote:
| No. But Putin is.
| kbenson wrote:
| I suspect that as you approach being entirely dependent on on
| supplier it goes from being a nice lever for each side to
| being a noose for one. China doesn't want to lose Apple's
| business. Apple _can 't_ lose China. Extrapolate across many
| industries.
|
| There's a difference between having a partner and being
| entirely dependent.
| yongjik wrote:
| Isn't this comparing, umm, apples and oranges? China
| doesn't want to lose Apple's business. China _can 't_ lose
| all business relationship with America (or maybe it can,
| but it will be extremely painful), which is what will
| likely happen if China invades Taiwan.
| floor2 wrote:
| That seems optimistic.
|
| We won't stop eating beef 3x a day even though we know
| it's literally destroying the world, we still buy
| diamonds mined by child slaves and clothes sewn by people
| making pennies per hour and even the sanctions against
| Russia carved out exceptions for everything the West
| really wanted/needed.
|
| We didn't stop doing business with China for a genocide
| in Tibet, an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs in
| Xinjiang, the brutality in Hong Kong or the human rights
| violations in current lockdowns.
|
| If China invades Taiwan, we'll buy iPhones from them
| anyway and tweet that we don't like what they're doing.
| Maybe we'll send a few billion dollars to Lockheed and
| Raytheon to make some weapons for Taiwain, but we won't
| do anything that actually requires an American to give up
| the slightest bit of comfort.
| mattnewton wrote:
| An invasion of Taiwan would be a major disruption to
| global semiconductor industry even if we kept buying from
| China in the meantime because it would grind TSMC to a
| halt. There is no way we could switch manufacturing over
| to Samsung, or spin up fabs elsewhere for that volume of
| chips.
| friedman23 wrote:
| > China can't lose all business relationship with America
|
| And America can't afford to lose business with China. So
| China will make the calculation that it can get away with
| an invasion of Taiwan.
| varispeed wrote:
| Probably Russia has made the same calculation about
| Germany. The biggest economy in Europe entirely dependent
| on Russian energy. If their "special operation" actually
| lasted a couple of weeks as they promised (it's hard to
| believe Germany didn't know about this way in advance),
| it is unlikely Europe, under German leadership, would
| have done anything apart from token sanctions. The
| contributing factor was of course the US and NATO
| projecting weakness after debacle in Afghanistan. Putin
| high on his own delusions, surrounded by yes-men, thought
| that was the once in a lifetime opportunity to pounce. If
| European economies weren't so dependent on Russian energy
| supplies, this war could probably have ended much quicker
| and thousands wouldn't have died needlessly.
| qwytw wrote:
| Will they also include the fact that it's extremely hard
| to execute a naval invasion without absolute air and sea
| superiority in that calculation? They would probably do
| worse than Russia did in Ukraine even without direct
| American involvement. China could only feasibly annex
| Taiwan peacefully (at least in the foreseable future)
| jamiek88 wrote:
| The window for China to successfully execute an
| amphibious assault on Taiwan is closed.
|
| It would be a cluserfuck of the highest order.
|
| It would also be telegraphed years in advance just by the
| sheer number of troops and landing craft needed and they
| would not have air or naval superiority in any realistic
| scenario.
|
| Taiwan is heavily defended.
|
| Taiwan can be destroyed (nukes) but cannot be annexed by
| force in any realistic assessment of capability.
| varispeed wrote:
| You are trying to look at it from a rational person point
| of view with your own biases, but the other side may
| think entirely differently. For instance, they may come
| to a conclusion that they have enough know how to go
| their own way. Feed some nationalist delusions,
| discouragement of critical thinking growing over the
| years and the nation may believe this is actually
| achievable. Then they may think the attack on Taiwan is
| just the right thing to do and if "imperialist America"
| does not like it, they can eat their Apple themselves.
| Etc. If anything, such intertwining of economies may
| actually prevent countries willing to help the attacked
| side from doing anything apart from token gestures out of
| fear their supply chains get destroyed. After all why
| should they care about some island thousands miles away,
| whereas if they weren't in any way dependent they could
| have rushed to help.
| malfist wrote:
| There's a scifi book series where a stable government is
| maintained by exclusive monopolies that the other
| provenience are dependent upon. Any provenience trying to
| break away will quickly find they are in an economic
| collapse because they can't supply themselves.
|
| Fascinating idea, until the monopolies break everything.
| I'll see if I can't find it.
|
| It's The Interdependency Series by John Scalzi:
| https://www.goodreads.com/series/202297-the-interdependency
| jjk166 wrote:
| This was how Stalin structured the Soviet economy during
| his industrialization push. It was one of the major
| reasons the collapse of the soviet union was so
| economically disastrous for the newly independent states.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Great example of a planned economy working as designed.
| mikestew wrote:
| That sounds a lot like the EU v1.0:
|
| _" Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a
| treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a
| common management. In this way, no single country can
| make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the
| past."_
|
| https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-
| histor...
| Kye wrote:
| This is essentially the US. For all the talk of secession
| from different factions depending on political winds, not
| much would really change aside from everything being a
| little more difficult. All the trade each state depends
| on that happens now through the nature of our federal
| system would happen through treaties, just like the UK
| post-Brexit.
| rayiner wrote:
| > All the trade each state depends on that happens now
| through the nature of our federal system would happen
| through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit
|
| That's an argument in favor of secession! They could
| still trade, but wouldn't be forced into a single polity
| making decisions on domestic issues like education,
| healthcare, abortion, immigration, etc.
| caeril wrote:
| The coastal US _needs_ flyover country to survive.
|
| Flyover country likes the things that ports/harbors,
| hollywood, silicon valley, and banks provide.
|
| These two are not the same.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| That's a seriously flawed evaluation.
| Maursault wrote:
| This is a seriously unsupported assertion.
| collegeburner wrote:
| is it? most of the agriculturally and industrially
| productive land is out in flyover country. and depending
| on who you ask areas that are mostly agriculture qualify
| as "flyover" even if they're e.g. east
| oregon/cali/washington. new england is probably the one
| exception but it's small in terms of area and ag output.
| malfist wrote:
| Do they? California produces half of the produce in the
| entire US.
| collegeburner wrote:
| that's by dollar value not calories. california produces
| a lot of fancy water-intensive stuff. flyover country
| produces mass nutrition.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California
| and the PNW are extremely fertile.
|
| They don't need flyover country.
| rayiner wrote:
| California couldn't exist without massive army crops of
| engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
| modeless wrote:
| So? The projects are already built and the water comes
| from within the state, for Northern California and most
| of the agriculture. Only the cities of Southern
| California rely on water from other states.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Good thing the hippie liberal and extremely wet PNW
| states of Oregon and Washington will give it to them in
| the post breakup world.
|
| We. Don't. Need. Flyover states.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| They also are in a drought are they not? Virtually the
| entirety of the country west of Missouri is. And that's
| only going to get worse and worse.
|
| They may still have enough for their needs, but it's
| unlikely they have enough for California's needs,
| especially for its agriculture.
| caeril wrote:
| Review some electoral maps. The OP was referring to
| secessionary scenarios, in which case most of Inland
| California, including the San Joaquin Valley, belongs to
| Team Red.
|
| Even so, _produce_ does not comprise a material
| percentage of the US caloric intake. Grains, tubers,
| grain oils, and meat definitely do.
|
| Beyond food, there's mining and energy. Without the
| coasts, The US would be significantly inconvenienced.
| Without flyover country, the US would be dead.
| thecrash wrote:
| American agriculture is entirely dependent on petroleum,
| of which the US imports millions of barrels a day.
|
| Inland farmers require foreign oil as an input to the
| caloric production you describe, which means that to
| survive they need the ports and pipelines of North
| America as well as the cooperation of oil-rich nations.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Don't forget the massive subsidies to corn farming etc.
| generated by Federal mandates for biofuels.
| wingspar wrote:
| Pretty sure if there was such a split, gulf coast states
| and their ports would go with the inland farmers. So
| petroleum would be imported around the Mississippi.
| Likely a split would have the 'red' states net exporting
| petroleum.
| kipchak wrote:
| Recently become a net exporter of all petroleum products,
| with Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado,
| Alaska and California being the largest producers. At
| least in the near term I don't think the flyover states
| are as reliant on imports as the coasts if you were to
| put them in separate categories.
|
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338
| https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-oil-
| production-b...
| malfist wrote:
| You guys are really delusional. You think the economic
| powerhouses (SF, LA, etc) in CA will just let half of CA
| secede?
|
| California produces almost 14% of all the crops grown in
| the US. A large portion of that are nuts and high calorie
| items like avocado and soy. You want food oils? Grains?
| Meats? CA exports all of those. CA is the 4th biggest
| producer of cattle in the US, 10th biggest poultry
| producer. 9th biggest producer of potatoes (Washington is
| #1, another coastal state). 2nd biggest rice producer.
|
| As far as energy, you realize Texas is also not one of
| your flyover states, right? And even if it wasn't, we
| import plenty of energy from pipelines to coastal states
| so it can be sold or refined. CA has nearly the same
| refinement capabilities as Texas itself.
|
| Fly over states are land. Undeveloped land is not
| extrinsically valuable.
| Bloating wrote:
| _Both sides would either devolve_
|
| I first read that as downvote, you know the internetizen
| apocalypse
| Kye wrote:
| Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes
| or realize ideological moderation is the only way to run
| a sustainable government. You can't run a government if
| it's all "death to red! never mind all the minorities
| there who've been suppressed" or "death to blue! my kids
| will hate me and leave at the first opportunity, but I
| won't care until it's too late."
|
| This is why I said all the current informal federal-based
| stuff would come back through treaty. I think _most_
| people on both "sides" are reasonable, so the split
| would never actually happen. And if it did, people would
| quickly miss all the stuff from the other side of it.
|
| It's on a level with considering what happens if the sun
| disappears. It can't happen without something freakish
| happening, and none of us really knows how it would go.
| caeril wrote:
| > Both sides would either devolve into unlivable
| hellscapes
|
| One side would devolve into an unlivable hellscape. The
| other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so,
| without access to modern imported goods.
|
| Nobody would "win". It's obviously a horrible scenario.
| But one side would definitely lose.
|
| > It can't happen without something freakish happening
|
| Nations collapse from political schism all the time. We
| just have short memories.
| Kye wrote:
| Modern farming is completely dependent on those ports you
| so eagerly gave away. How many millions of people would
| die of starvation and from the inevitable resource wars
| while the few people who know how to farm the old-
| fashioned way figured out how to make it work on land
| that's been made dependent on abundant imported
| fertilizer and pesticides?
|
| I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are
| prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
| caeril wrote:
| Modern farming is indeed dependent on imports. But
| modern-"ish" farming, with tractors, combines, and some
| degree of mechanization can still be done and maintained
| without microprocessors, sensors, and precision pumps and
| machine tools.
|
| And if your supply requirements decrease by 150MM people,
| that makes the job substantially easier to manage.
|
| > I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are
| prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
|
| Ah, but they think they are. Which is really the only
| thing that matters, since beyond a certain point, it's
| too late.
| malfist wrote:
| > The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or
| so, without access to modern imported goods
|
| Subsistence farming is great for feeding an army so you
| can rebel against your government
| MR4D wrote:
| That train of thought used to be true, but with the EU and
| Russia, it seems not to be true as much.
|
| Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The US can get
| along without Apple (although 401K's might take a big hit),
| but China without Apple would be a pretty big issue, even if
| you only look at it from an employment viewpoint.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| That train of thought was used to argue that a big war was
| impossible in Europe ... in 1913. Politics is not economics
| and economics is not politics. It takes a very deep
| ignorance of history to think otherwise.
| jquery wrote:
| >8 years to move 10% of it
|
| I think this timeline is heavily dependent on how motivated
| Apple is...
| angry_cactus wrote:
| The article said
|
| > But Bloomberg Intelligence estimates it would take about
| eight years to move just 10% of Apple's production capacity out
| of China, where roughly 98% of the company's iPhones have been
| made.
|
| 98% of the iPhones that have been made already, not 98% of
| iPhones currently being made. So the percentage is probably
| somewhat lower as of present.
| barrkel wrote:
| If it takes 8 years to move 10%, does that mean it takes 16
| years to move 20%? Would it take 80 years to move 100%?
|
| Doesn't really make sense, does it, given that it didn't take
| 80 years to ramp up originally.
|
| Apple couldn't move out of China overnight, but it could move
| faster or slower, depending on how much of an impact to the
| bottom line it can take.
| dmix wrote:
| There's so many developing countries that could make tons of
| $$ by adopting manufacturing. All of Africa, South East Asia
| (vietnam et al are rising quickly), maybe parts of South
| America and Eastern Europe, and even Central Asia.
|
| If I was the leader in any of those regions I'd be figuring
| out how to become #2 or #3 to Chin and India ASAP. But I
| guess they all have their own local problems to excuse away
| why they don't.
| mmaunder wrote:
| And one of the largest social applications in the US. Hearts
| and minds.
| hammock wrote:
| So 100 years to move all of it..
| alexfromapex wrote:
| I totally get that but what I don't understand is why they'd
| shift it to India instead of the USA or somewhere closer. This
| might create the same problem a few years from now.
| themagician wrote:
| At some level, slave labor or literally wage slavery is
| necessary to make the things most of us enjoy. It's not just
| the low pay that's the issue though. Big companies need to be
| able to dump production waste somewhere otherwise costs
| increase.
|
| An Apple product that was truly, 100% made in the USA from
| parts that are also 100% made in the USA would be extremely
| expensive. The Librem 5 USA is about as close as you can get
| at $2000 for a phone with pretty anemic specs; and many
| individual parts and raw materials still come from abroad.
| millimeterman wrote:
| It's not like Apple can compel anyone to work for them -
| they must offer competitive pay to attract workers. By
| definition, the people in India taking jobs at Apple are
| doing so because it's the best option available to them.
| The reality is that foreign industry factory jobs are
| generally considered quite desirable and high-paying in
| these countries. This "slave labor" is, in fact, one of the
| primary mechanisms by which living standards in developing
| countries are elevated over time.
|
| You may (understandably) feel bad about enjoying a product
| made by someone getting nominally paid orders of magnitude
| less than you. But naively arguing that Apple should be
| mandated to pay more (or even be forced to produce in the
| US) does the opposite of help the people you claim to be
| worried about.
| themagician wrote:
| I don't feel bad at all. I'm just saying, that's the way
| it is. I'm not arguing for Apple to be paying more. What
| I am calling "slavery" for lack of a better word, in
| whatever form it may take, is a key component of
| capitalism. I'm just saying that no one really _wants_
| something made 100% in the USA because very few people
| could afford it.
|
| You are 100% right in that this is the primary mechanism
| for increasing the standard of living around the world.
| It's worked so well in fact that the wages in China are
| not nearly as low as they once were. I would say that low
| wages alone are no longer the primary benefit of having
| something made in China. It's much more the scale and
| loose environmental regulations that are valuable now.
| There are quite a few things that you use every day which
| are almost exclusively made in China or India or similar.
|
| I think people in general do not realize just how much we
| rely on China and Chinese manufacturing, and how
| beneficial it is for everyone to have things made abroad.
| People focus on the higher end factory items like iPhone
| assembly but don't often think about all the sub-
| components. Base materials like adhesive, spray on
| preservatives, plastic containers, labels, etc. are
| almost all made in China or somewhere with loose
| environmental regulations. There are so many items that
| go into day-to-day items that are either made in China or
| made from products imported from China. If it's made from
| plastic or for plastic, and it's made at scale, there is
| a really good chance it's made in China.
| millimeterman wrote:
| > What I am calling "slavery" for lack of a better word
|
| I would object to calling a mutually beneficial
| arrangement "slavery", but whatever.
|
| > I'm just saying that no one really wants something made
| 100% in the USA because very few people could afford it
|
| While this is true, it invites reasonable-sounding
| criticism to the effect of "well if you can't make your
| cheap toys without exploiting people then maybe you
| shouldn't have it at all" and so misses the most crucial
| point. Forcing something to be made 100% in the USA is
| bad for _everyone_. It doesn't empower workers at the
| cost of the rich or empower Indians at the cost of
| Americans. It simply satisfies some misguided and/or
| nationalistic sentiment while leaving everyone worse off
| for it.
|
| > I would say that low wages alone are no longer the
| primary benefit of having something made in China. It's
| much more the scale and loose environmental regulations
| that are valuable now.
|
| While yes, a huge component is the vast amount of
| manufacturing expertise and capital that has been built
| up in China. It may have started as a country from which
| you bought cheap junk manufactured for low wages, sure.
| But after decades of that unsavory and seemingly
| exploitative relationship, China is now home to lots of
| advanced, high quality manufacturing with skilled and
| productive workers that can demand better pay than ever
| before.
|
| In a funny sense, it reminds me of that quote about how
| "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will
| hang them". At no point did any of the foreign industries
| investing in China have any intention more noble than
| "exploiting" cheap, undifferentiated labor from a
| developing country. Yet that very behavior has apparently
| driven wages so high that companies are willing to spend
| billions to start the process all over again in another
| country.
| valarauko wrote:
| Apple suppliers already have infrastructure in place to
| assemble iPhones in India (and Brazil?) so it makes sense to
| boost that capacity. Lower hanging fruit.
| bohadi wrote:
| Economic interdependence is studied in the theory of
| International Relations.
|
| As other commenters have pointed out, interdependence is
| variously seen as preventing or leading to conflict. The former
| in the Liberalist school, when two countries both see war as
| too costly to their mutual interests. The latter in the Realist
| school, when interdependence is weaponized as a point of
| control or viewed as vulnerability.
|
| The trade expectations model (Copeland) argues that high
| existing interdependence but declining expectations leads to
| conflict, while a statusquo that is relatively independent but
| with increasing expectations can be peace-inducing. I admit the
| expectations model is somewhat circular reasoning, cyclical
| really. Though it is statistically explanative of historical
| conflicts in the 19th and 20th century.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interdependence
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539041
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Is Apple important? They produces nice gadgets but those don't
| seem to power anything truly important and could be replaced
| easily.
| squidofbits wrote:
| Indeed Apple is a frivolous enterprise. MacBooks and iPhones
| aren't used for anything important.
| yrgulation wrote:
| melling wrote:
| There's always south of the US border.
|
| Making Central America rich solves the immigration issue that
| has caused much political divisiveness.
|
| Of course many Americans will likely head south for a better
| deal:
|
| https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/mexico-city-residents-
| angered-...
| yrgulation wrote:
| That and ukraine once the war is over and simply automating
| more and bringing manufacturing back in the west and
| western allied countries.
| witnesser2 wrote:
| I sort of work much on automation. Once upon a time in a
| Canada futon factory I worked as summer jobber. They had
| a automation packing machine that is like getting broken
| every two or three hours so the whole line of workers
| have to wait for it to get fixed, like most my later
| working scenarios. I do believe I have pretty solid
| engineering background. The biggest problem of automation
| is the mechanical parts are so easy to break down. The
| second problem is electronic chip mostly last two years,
| if they are located in a very complex place (inside an
| engine, tall building roof etc), repair and replacement
| cost is prohibitive. Untrained and transient labors
| hardly think of the two problems.
|
| while doers do, haters hate. It is complex.
| croes wrote:
| So more expensive products and less jobs because of
| automation.
|
| Next economic crisis here we come.
| Jalad wrote:
| This seems like a luddite's argument. Automation tends to
| make things less expensive, and automation hasn't lead to
| economic crisis' in the past
|
| That's like saying computers are going to destroy a lot
| of jobs and cause an economic crisis, when in reality the
| opposite happened
| croes wrote:
| So why was it necessary to shift production to China?
|
| Automation tended to kill blue collar jobs, and if you
| don't have job even cheap is expensive.
|
| The next wave of automation will kill the higher value
| jobs too.
| adventured wrote:
| > So why was it necessary to shift production to China?
|
| It wasn't necessary. You're conflating necessary with
| desirable.
|
| The gap between the two is an increased profit margin,
| which is desirable for most corporations.
|
| Further, the CCP is becoming both dramatically more
| hostile to business in general and more dangerous as a
| foe to liberal, democratic nations (including Taiwan most
| prominently), while simultaneously the financial cost of
| operating in China has continued to climb by the year
| (which is a trend that is unlikely to significantly
| reverse). The China discount for offshoring isn't nearly
| what it was 15-20 years ago.
|
| The disaster that Russia is causing in Europe is a small
| hint of what China might cause in Asia in the coming
| decades. Russia's perceived capabilities weren't nearly
| what the West thought they were; China's military
| capabilities are more likely to exceed our expectations
| (in recent history China has more commonly followed the
| path of hide your strength and bide your time, as opposed
| to Russia's vacuous boasting), and it's backed up by a
| gigantic economy with manufacturing that Russia could
| only dream of.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| And a lot of automation in manufacturing doesn't negate
| the need for human labor anyway. It's still faster, more
| efficient, and better QA in many cases to have humans
| assemble certain things than to use machines. That won't
| be the case forever, but the level that people think that
| the automation is going to be superior or even faster
| than the human element is often forgotten.
|
| I agree with you that automation doesn't necessarily lead
| to a loss of jobs. It can create opportunities for whole
| new skills and job types.
|
| The struggle has been, especially in the US, that we
| haven't then properly prepared or skilled people to do
| the new wave of jobs that can't be automated.
|
| I always think of this article [1] from January 2017:
|
| > When the German engineering company Siemens Energy
| opened a gas turbine production plant in Charlotte, N.C.,
| some 10,000 people showed up at a job fair for 800
| positions. But fewer than 15 percent of the applicants
| were able to pass a reading, writing and math screening
| test geared toward a ninth-grade education.
|
| So out of 10,000 applicants, less than 1500 were even
| qualified to interview for a job, of which they only had
| 800 positions. That's a problem but the solution isn't to
| shun automation.
|
| [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/education/edlife/
| factory-...
| yrgulation wrote:
| Thats the catch. Automating here in the west means we can
| maintain a lower price while creating jobs that would
| otherwise be lost altogether. I think returning
| manufacturing with these constraints in mind is a must.
| croes wrote:
| You can't just retrain workers from the jobs they
| replaced to new jobs.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Takes time and effort but it will be worth it in the end.
| croes wrote:
| Central America is more expensive than Asia.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Central America has some very hard to solve cartel issues.
| mrchucklepants wrote:
| End the drug war and the problem will solve itself.
| [deleted]
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| ch4s3 wrote:
| They don't just sell drugs. They're woven into whole
| economies from tourism to construction and beyond.
| brianwawok wrote:
| So how do you propose to do that?
| spraveenitpro wrote:
| Jabrov wrote:
| This statement makes no sense. Ending the drug war will
| not automatically end the existence of cartels.
| stickfigure wrote:
| It just takes away 90% of their revenue, which is
| effective enough.
| uup wrote:
| The issue is that the cartels are now endemic to the
| region. They're part of the government, they're extorting
| legal businesses, they're laundering the money and
| investing into legitimate businesses. You can't just undo
| their influence.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| So.... you're saying we shouldn't end the drug war?
| Because without a doubt that would have a massive impact
| on cartels.
| concordDance wrote:
| > So.... you're saying we shouldn't end the drug war?
|
| You might want to reread his post or take reading
| comprehension lessons.
| didibus wrote:
| I think logically the path for these is to become legal
| business entities no?
| googlryas wrote:
| Yes, I'm sure the narco multi-millionaires will happily
| go back to being peasant-farmers after legalization.
| boringg wrote:
| They aren't only into drugs - cartels are around all
| products.
| jarnagin wrote:
| Evidence from California seems to suggest that ending the
| drug war locally has actually strengthened cartels: https
| ://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-09-08/ess..
| .
| didibus wrote:
| I'm curious why growers feel it's still more advantageous
| to illegally grow? It must mean the risk/reward still
| dramatically favours illegal production. That's what
| needs to be addressed.
|
| I think coffee/tobacco is probably a good example of what
| can be achieved with legalizing drugs. It might be the
| path to it is a bit slow as there's a transition, but I
| don't see why other drugs couldn't end up similarly to
| coffee.
|
| Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do
| fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the
| illegal production route?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do
| fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the
| illegal production route?
|
| I've never illegally bought drugs but I know people that
| have. I would not be comfortable doing it, but plenty of
| people are. Drugs, especially legal ones, are expensive.
|
| I've never illegally bought fruit and I do not know
| anyone who has. I don't know anyone who would be
| comfortable doing it. Legal fruit is not expensive.
| sigstoat wrote:
| alas, the cartels are not bound by normal lobbying rules.
| liotier wrote:
| When a poor country takes off, emigration doesn't decrease:
| it increases, as people become more educated, better
| informed and can afford travel.
| brokencode wrote:
| Source? Maybe legal emigration increases, but I doubt
| that illegal or asylum-seeking emigration would increase.
| People are fleeing from the terrible conditions in their
| home countries.
| adventured wrote:
| This premise was discussed a few times prominently on HN,
| and it appears to be accurate. There is an initial surge
| in people leaving as a country climbs economically; then
| it tapers off and reverses after you get rich enough to
| support what I would guess is a broad middle class
| quality of life.
|
| "New Research Confirms that Migration Rises as the
| Poorest Countries Get Richer"
|
| "As GDP per capita rises, so do emigration rates. This
| relationship slows after roughly US$5,000, and reverses
| after roughly $10,000"
|
| https://www.cgdev.org/article/new-research-confirms-
| migratio...
| influx wrote:
| Funny no one suggests bringing it back to the USA. The
| margins are good enough on those products, and there is
| enough room for automation they could do it.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| We don't have the amount of labor, let alone the the
| rightly skilled labor (I recognize these aren't "skilled
| labor" jobs, which we don't have enough skilled labor for
| but we also don't have enough people to do the unskilled
| labor inline with other parts of the world because we
| stopped training people for this type of work decades
| ago) to do this kind of work. We just don't. Especially
| not at the volume you would need for stuff like AirPods
| or Beats.
|
| The Foxconn fiasco in Wisconsin was a grift on many, many
| levels - but the labor part of it was never taken care of
| even before that whole thing blew up.
|
| The reality is, if you were to manufacture something like
| AirPods (let alone an iPhone) in the US, you would be not
| only doubling or tripling your labor costs, you'd be
| getting shittier labor for your money. Not to mention the
| additional expenses and tariffs of having to recenter all
| of the material imports and parts into the US from other
| parts of the world.
|
| I'm all for paying better wages throughout the world,
| even at the expense of profit margin or raised device
| prices. It's a lot harder to justify paying more for
| lesser-quality labor and to upend logistics because of
| some false idea that "made in America" means anything.
| icelancer wrote:
| >> The reality is, if you were to manufacture something
| like AirPods (let alone an iPhone) in the US, you would
| be not only doubling or tripling your labor costs, you'd
| be getting shittier labor for your money.
|
| The latter part of your statement is very poorly
| understood by most people on HN and generally the US.
| Having toured overseas factories that make goods my
| company contract manufactures... there is no way American
| workers at 3x the wages could possibly compete in terms
| of productivity. You're absolutely right, and while I
| somewhat believed this to be plausible before I visited,
| after actually seeing how products were made over there
| in "skilled labor" factories, it's truly insane.
| ericmay wrote:
| I think you're right but I disagree with your assertion
| that we couldn't manufacture these products in the US.
| Certainly we can't overnight, but it doesn't mean we
| can't _at all_ or that we couldn 't or shouldn't try to,
| generally speaking. Add to the fact that in China in
| particular as it grows into a more middle income country
| it no longer becomes the "cheapest place to build stuff"
| and instead comes more inline with other first-world
| economies which will cause companies to relocate
| factories provided cost is a concern, which if it is, it
| means leaving China and if it's not then there isn't an
| argument for not relocating outside of China in the first
| place.
|
| > It's a lot harder to justify paying more for lesser-
| quality labor and to upend logistics because of some
| false idea that "made in America" means anything.
|
| Well it kind of does right? It's a geostrategic concern
| where certain components or products need to be made in
| safe harbors. Instability is bad for business, and the
| fact that we are discussing this proves the point. Made
| in America doesn't necessarily have to mean the rah-rah
| Eagles soaring kind of thing, it can also mean actual
| national security concerns relative to geopolitical and
| strategic realities that necesitate hire costs that
| outweigh other benefits.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| > Certainly we can't overnight, but it doesn't mean we
| can't at all or that we couldn't or shouldn't try to,
| generally speaking.
|
| Ok, but we have tried. A number of times. And it has
| failed. Ironically, foreign car companies probably do the
| best job with doing manufacturing plants in the US right
| now. But many of the experiments to bring manufacturing
| back to the US, especially with electronics, have failed.
| See also the Foxconn disaster in Wisconsin that cost
| billions but never got off the ground. And the attempts
| by Apple, Motorola and others to make products here. And
| the flat-out education crisis that has prevented more
| chip fabs from even being built stateside.
|
| I'm not saying don't try. But we have tried. And it has
| failed. Abs the quality of labor is more expensive and
| worse and I don't blame any company for looking
| elsewhere.
|
| > it can also mean actual national security concerns
| relative to geopolitical and strategic realities that
| necesitate hire costs that outweigh other benefits.
|
| Ok, but "assembled in America" wouldn't solve this.
| Almost every single part -- the semiconductor, the
| memory, the screens, the screws, the plastic or aluminum
| housings, the batteries, the battery controllers, are
| made in China or Vietnam or Taiwan. Using minerals
| sourced from Africa or South America or whatever. So
| unless you can move the entire supply chain to this
| region (and we do not have the labor, skilled or
| unskilled to do any of that), a supply chain that has
| been carefully and meticulously setup for maximum tax
| benefits for all parties involved, what benefit is
| achieved of having a person in America assemble a phone
| with an SoC and RAM and an SSD that was still made in
| Asia? If there is a national security concern, that
| concern will exist whether the product is assembled in
| Texas or in Shenzhen. If there is going to be a back
| door, it'll come in anyway.
|
| Even the solution of building for fabs here (which we
| should do and should have started investing in at least a
| decade ago) is difficult because we don't have the labor
| figures to staff this fabs. And those fabs are largely
| skilled jobs. TSMC and others are offering insane amounts
| of money to college grads to move to Asia to work in the
| fabs. Intel is way behind on building new fabs and part
| of that is labor-related. And although Intel is based in
| the US, it doesn't make the chips that run in 99% of the
| world's electronics.
|
| I'm not saying there aren't potential security problems.
| I'm saying that those will exist regardless of where
| stuff is assembled and that globally, being able to upend
| the whole state of supply chain and logistics away from
| Asia and into another geographic area is something that
| would take a decade on the low-end and the parts of the
| world that would be well-equipped to take on that sort of
| load (Vietnam, India, some parts of Central and South
| America), have their own major geopolitical struggles.
|
| It's a difficult problem to solve and we should
| absolutely be less reliant on one region for all of our
| manufacturing, but we need to acknowledge this isn't a
| problem that can be solved quickly or that frankly, the
| US is well-positioned to solve at all.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Totally agree with everything you're saying. Apple
| products (along with most consumer electronics) simply
| aren't strategic to national security so they can and
| will be continued to be made where profit margins are
| highest modulo tariffs and sanctions.
| yrgulation wrote:
| I did and one option in order to keep costs low is to
| rely more on high end automation. And when there is no
| capacity then have it spread around allied countries
| first. It makes sense from a strategic point of view.
| Countries such as india have no issue, as we see in the
| comment section and its actions, to look after its own
| citizens first. Why shouldn't we follow a similar
| approach? Why send manufacturing to countries that blame
| their issues on us and first chance they have to take
| selfish action they do it. Shouldn't we also (by we and
| us i mean all aligned countries including those in asia
| and latin america) look after our own first? It feels
| like so often we help nations develop only to have it
| backfire later on.
| Veliladon wrote:
| Because India is also putting a lot of effort into
| submodule production. It's one thing to do final assembly
| in a location. What India is doing is putting a lot of
| effort into building the ancillary industries that
| accompany final assembly. All those discrete resistors
| and capacitors that go onto the PCB have to be sourced
| from somewhere. If you run out the line can't do
| anything. This doesn't happen in cities like Taipei,
| Guangzhou, and Shenzhen because there's literally
| infinite amounts of these commodities in the area thanks
| to all the manufacturers of these commodities.
|
| Nobody in the US makes SMD parts anymore. It's all higher
| up in the value chain. But those parts, even if they're
| commodities, still need to be made. India is going for it
| which is why Apple is diversifying there instead of the
| US.
| geodel wrote:
| Well margins are good because they build cheap and sell
| expensive. Isn't it?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Bringing it back?
|
| The US was never a bluetooth headphone manufacturing
| powerhouse. We make other stuff, and we should continue
| to make the high value goods we are specialized in, not
| consumer trinkets for low wages. Value added in
| manufacturing is far more important, and building
| headphones doesn't do that. Leave that to some other
| place.
|
| I suspect that you have been listening to too much news
| entertainment. The US manufacturing industry is as big as
| it's ever been in terms of real output (not jobs). There
| has more than a trillion dollars in expansion since the
| pre-covid peak in manufacturing. The US is #2 in the
| world for gross manufacturing output, and in the top 10
| for value add.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Why shouldnt the us and the eu plus friends manufacture
| bluetooth headsets with the aid of high tech robotics? As
| soon as that type of high volume low price manufacturing
| moves back you will see a lot more innovation. This will
| only benefit everyone's progress including in non aligned
| countries. The r&d and training to build and create
| robotics would be rather welcome.
| icelancer wrote:
| >> Why shouldnt the us and the eu plus friends
| manufacture bluetooth headsets with the aid of high tech
| robotics?
|
| Because:
|
| >> high volume low price manufacturing
|
| Is not possible in the US or EU.
| narrator wrote:
| A lot of u.s manufacturing capability for electronics is
| paid for by military contracts. The U.S manufacturers
| don't even try to compete with China because military
| contractors are not allowed to make stuff there.
| falcolas wrote:
| IMO, since Apple's public, it would dig too deeply into
| Apple's short-term profitability and growth, making it a
| no-go for its voting shareholders.
| javajosh wrote:
| Put it to a vote.
| adra wrote:
| Rich people hold most of the shares and they don't want
| people to know that they're just as self-centered as the
| rest of us (likely more which is partially what inflated
| their coffers to begin with, but that's just subjective
| assumptions).
| ryeights wrote:
| Time to put the ESG/political posturing of major
| financial firms to the test, I suppose?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Time to put the ESG/political posturing of major
| financial firms to the test, I suppose?
|
| Fastest way to end ESG posturing I suppose. Although ESG
| concerns don't typically include "made in America". It's
| not clear to me how that's be an ESG thing.
| miketery wrote:
| Russia's ally is a stretch. It wouldn't go to war against the
| west with Russia. Russia is a resource rich nation, and India
| needs resource. That's it. The cheap military hardware helps
| too.
| yrgulation wrote:
| In effect financing russia's war machine against a european
| country. Totally not cool.
| Ekaros wrote:
| So only financing wars against Middle-Eastern countries
| is fine?
| yrgulation wrote:
| I wasnt aware india is doing that but that should also
| stop.
| srvmshr wrote:
| I don't think India wages proxy wars in Middle east. They
| are geographically separate by at least a thousand miles.
| bboygravity wrote:
| The EU was also financing a war against a European
| country until about a month ago. At the tune of around
| 400 million EUR a week (correct me if wrong) in gas it
| purchased from Russia.
|
| With Germany being by far the biggest buyer.
|
| What's your point?
| yrgulation wrote:
| Germany was under a lot of pressure to end its reliance
| on russian gas and got a lot of flack for having allowed
| such high dependency. Its also a supplier of weapons and
| financial aid as well as a member of nato. As you can see
| even between allies there is a lot of critique. I suppose
| the question is, what is _your_ point?
| motoxpro wrote:
| I think the point is that's a little bit more complicated
| than you make it out to be. The USA is also "supporting
| the war effort" by buying fertilizer, etc from them.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Thats just whataboutism. Also the us of a is pretty much
| leading the effort for ukraine's independence along with
| the uk.
| srvmshr wrote:
| If it is just whataboutism, then why bother.
|
| India is a major US military equipment importer today by
| slowly pivoting from USSR tech & also a significant
| business partner to the US. Many multiples higher than
| its trade with Russia. Thats real $. We could similarly
| argue India is supporting the US efforts by supporting
| its revenue.
| FpUser wrote:
| FpUser wrote:
| Blah blah blah. Europe trades with Russia and it all that
| matters. Sugarcoating does not help. And India does not
| need it any less than Europe.
| srvmshr wrote:
| That's a bit uncharitable view considering Russia was
| getting $1B+ from EU block for gas via Nord Stream 1
| every single week until very recently. Indian imports
| pale in that comparison, being a tiny fraction of that
| amount.
|
| If you're gonna point fingers at least lets do it with
| the facts being straight.
|
| Truthfully, diplomatic relationship isn't a black &
| white, zero-sum kind of game. The fact that US policies
| change so erratically gives a lot of countries low
| confidence from going all-in. The stake is population of
| 1.4B & a mostly modest per capita income. When you got
| mouths to feed, war in a distant land makes less sense.
|
| Edit: typo
| blue_light_man wrote:
| Does India imports more gas from Russia than EU?
| mpweiher wrote:
| You know which Russian gas pipeline is still in
| operation?
|
| The one that goes through Ukraine.
|
| These things are a tad more complicated.
| desi_ninja wrote:
| holy crap dude. read a book or something about India. India
| has class related problems because of economic disparity and
| caste (in ALL religions) does play a role but not central to
| it. It is akin to racism problem in USA, outlawed but will
| take some time to fully go away. Do not confuse it with dalit
| oppression. Dalits are as ministers in democratic process,
| film stars, athletes, in military and top institutes. What
| are your news sources about India ? I am worried you are
| being misled by agenda based reporting. Block NYT and WaPo
| posting on India right away for a better understanding of the
| country.
| avl999 wrote:
| My reading of the situation is that India is not necessarily
| pro-Russia, instead its position on Russia vs the West and
| Russia vs Ukraine is to quote Trump "very fine people on both
| sides" which may be problematic in of itself but is less red-
| flaggy than "pro-Russia".
| Georgelemental wrote:
| India is not Russia's ally, it is also not Russia's foe. They
| are aligned with each other on some issues (like Pakistan),
| disagree on other things, like the war in Ukraine.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| 1. India is not alligned to any country. India cares about
| what it's best interest for its own people. If that means
| buying oil from Russia so be it.
|
| 2. Article 46 of Indian constitution -> "The State shall
| promote with special care the educational and economic
| interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in
| particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Sche- duled
| Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all
| forms of exploitation."
|
| 3. The constitution itself of India was written by Ambedkar
| who himself is a dalit.
| ram4jesus wrote:
| I applaud the Indian state. One of the worst things about
| the Ukraine-Russian Conflict is being made to pick a side.
| Kudos to India for masterfully navigating both sides.
| croes wrote:
| By buying russian oil and indirectly supporting Russia.
| fpoling wrote:
| Europe have been getting Russian oil, gas and other
| resources for trillions of USD for the last 20 years
| perfectly aware that the money was spent on corruption
| and military buildup. Moreover, Europe continues to do so
| even now. European companies even continued to send
| military equipment to Russia after the initial invasion
| in Ukraine in 2014.
|
| I do not say that it makes India somehow right. But the
| scale of wrongs by Europe is so big that any benefits
| India is trying to get are minuscule .
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Until the pipeline blew up, how many resources did the EU
| import from Russia compared to India?
| srvmshr wrote:
| Unfortunately diplomacy is a balancing act. India, I
| assume keeps a higher priority on making sure its poorest
| don't go under in this ongoing energy crisis. They have
| 1.4B mouths to feed & not exactly rich. Plus its not
| their fight, and if they don't want to join a security
| quorum against a third country, its their choice.
| addicted wrote:
| I think this is mistaken.
|
| We have seen no Western governments strongly criticize
| India for these oil purchases. The only criticisms have
| been from media outlets and mild criticisms when
| government officials are questioned by the media. But
| even those mild criticisms are usually caveated with
| something to the effect that this is not gonna affect
| relations with India.
|
| The reason is simple. Western countries are privately
| thrilled with Indias arrangement. If India wasn't buying
| Russian oil they would be buying it from the global
| market instead which would further push up oil prices and
| therefore inflation.
|
| Even better, India is doing it at a massive discount
| ($35/barrel, I believe) which at current prices
| effectively translates to Russia selling oil to India at
| a loss.
|
| Another interesting thing to note is that the $35/barrel
| discount India is getting, is functionally similar to the
| price cap idea that the European countries are trying to
| enact. In fact, I suspect it's an even lower price than
| the cap they will settle on, and it remains to be seen if
| Europe can enact this price cap at all, something India
| has been doing successfully for the entirety of the war.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, it's not indirect. It's quite direct. India has
| fossil fuel deals with Russia and gets most of its
| weapons from Russia. America armed wars against India in
| the past and continues to be the largest source of
| military aid for India's regional enemy Pakistan. Indian-
| American relations have become quite good in recent times
| but geopolitics isn't a schoolyard my side v your side
| thing. You just manage the amount to which people will
| align with one or the other on a specific issue.
| nerdawson wrote:
| Keep in mind that the European gas crisis is because
| Russia are restricting supply, not because European
| countries aren't prepared to buy it.
|
| Are India behaving any differently to European countries
| in trying to secure energy?
| adventured wrote:
| The EU is voluntarily cutting off purchasing Russian oil
| - which is what the parent comment referred to - and has
| placed an embargo on Russian oil.
|
| The EU is taking enormous harm upon itself by what it's
| doing in regards to the Ukraine / Russia war. It could
| stay out of the Ukraine conflict, it could have the
| pipelines all operating normally, it could be enjoying
| dramatically lower energy bills.
|
| India is doing the exact opposite. They're intentionally
| avoiding harming themselves and are opportunistically
| buying cheap energy.
|
| Yes, they're behaving very differently. Which also
| doesn't mean it's not in India's self-interest to
| purchase cheap energy, given their economic context. One
| would be a fool to not grasp why they're doing it and
| that for their own well-being it may very well make
| sense; they're not part of Europe and they don't view
| themselves as being involved.
| addicted wrote:
| Oil is a global market. India buying Russian oil means
| they aren't buying it from the broader market. If they
| didn't buy Russian oil they would buy it from the broader
| market increasing overall oil prices and inflation in
| Europe.
|
| More importantly, India is buying oil at a heavily
| discounted price, which at current prices means Russia is
| likely selling at a loss. This is working so well that
| Europe is trying to emulate something similar with their
| price cap idea, which is functionally similar to what
| India is doing, except India's discount probably means an
| even lower price for Russia and India has been doing this
| successfully for 200+ days while it's not clear Europe's
| price cap idea will ever get off the ground.
| opportune wrote:
| India's GDP per capita is a bit over $2000. The EU GDP
| per capita is about $40k.
|
| I completely understand them buying energy from wherever
| it's cheapest. Industrialization of India decreases real
| poverty, and an increase in prices would hit them hard.
| Asking them to stop buying fuel is like asking a homeless
| person for food. And doesn't the EU continue to purchase
| Russian gas?
| yrgulation wrote:
| > India cares about what it's best interest for its own
| people. If that means buying oil from Russia so be it.
|
| So should we. Too often we help countries that then turn
| their backs on us because they "care about whats best for
| their people". Arent we allowed to do the same? Why such a
| negative reaction when we even suggest the prospect of
| doing so.
| lazyninja987 wrote:
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _India is russia'a ally_
|
| India's geopolitical focus was Pakistan. In that, Russia was
| a good ally. As that shifts towards Beijing, Moscow becomes
| one of the worst possible defence partners.
| [deleted]
| badrabbit wrote:
| India does business with Russia that does not mean they are
| allied. Allied means India would be participating in the
| Ukraine conflict like Bulgaria.
|
| But I get what you mean, they have similar relationships with
| China and the US as well, they are a sovreim nation that do
| what they think is best for their people.
| [deleted]
| MisterSandman wrote:
| India is more of an ally to the US than Russia. The prime
| minister openly asked for the war to stop, which is hardly a
| show of support.
|
| I don't see how you can complain about environmental impact
| when the average Apple user in the US probabaly has an order
| of magnitude higher impact on the environment than the
| average Indian.
| anaganisk wrote:
| Apple should move from US? As if US doesn't countries like
| Dubai, and Israel which promote active killing of innocent
| journalists. Has many of its states controlling womens
| rights? Bailouts and supports companies like Exonn or BP that
| caused severe disasters?
| state_less wrote:
| > India is russia'a ally and we shouldn't depend on it
| either.
|
| This statement lacks nuance regarding the dynamics of the
| region. India has to negotiate with China, Pakistan, Russia,
| EU, US and others. India tries to balance the situation as
| best they know how, and each party doesn't always get
| everything they want.
|
| Recently India had China right on their doorstep/border and I
| expect it put a bit of strain on the India-Russia relations
| due to the ties between Russia and China. It looks like that
| situation has cooled down some, which is positive.
|
| I'd prefer the US engage with India in a way that strengthens
| our shared values and our trading interests.
| hionnode wrote:
| pb7 wrote:
| Calling out societal problems is not racism. Indians
| calling out police violence in the US wouldn't be racism
| either.
| hionnode wrote:
| Calling out societal problems is not racism, but using
| that pretext to undermine a whole country when you don't
| even have a tiny bit of idea on what the ground situation
| is, it's definitely racist.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Thank you. I have precisely zero negative feelings
| towards indians. Incidentally in a previous comment i
| criticised what i perceive as wests' declining freedoms.
| We should he allowed to discuss such topics without being
| slandered as racist.
| yrgulation wrote:
| It would have been racist if i said anything about indians.
| But i appreciate the attempt at projecting racism on me
| instead of focusing on india's racism towards the lower
| castes. I wouldnt in good faith and conscience buy a
| product made by exploiting those people. Countries can be
| criticised, nothing racist in that.
| hionnode wrote:
| That prejudice in your comment towards India, also you
| seem more than okay consuming products made by a country
| that has a large section of it's minority population in
| correction camps, Countries can be criticised if you're
| objective in that, here you're not only biased but
| actively undermining a country based on your prejudice.
| pb7 wrote:
| That's the whole point, we're not okay consuming products
| made by these types of countries, that's why there is an
| effort to move production elsewhere. This thread is
| discussing why the alternative may be better but not good
| overall.
| anaganisk wrote:
| Your racism shows in your tone deaf comments. Give me a
| first world country name, and I will give you links to the
| same behaviour of the said country vs India.
| malshe wrote:
| > most important their treatment of the dalit and lower
| castes.
|
| Dalit are people from lower caste. Also, Indians have been
| actively engaged in removing the caste-based discrimination
| for decades now. It will take time. Do you know that at least
| 50% of all the jobs in the government sector are reserved
| from people in the lower caste? The same applied to college
| education as well. This percentage may be higher in some
| Indian states. Show me another country that has taken such
| drastic steps to correct historical wrongs.
| Qtips87 wrote:
| India caste-based discrimination is as strong as before.
| All this jobs reservations are created by politicians who
| want to get the votes of the lower caste but this is just a
| show. The real test of the pudding is that the dalits fare
| better when the British was running the show.
| mwerty wrote:
| I'm not sure about the last sentence. India had a
| literacy rate of 16% when the British left and education
| was monopolized by non-Dalits/SC/STs AFAIK. Do you have
| numbers?
| Qtips87 wrote:
| Violence against the dalits is much worst than when the
| British was running the show. At least during the Raj
| times, a dalit can reasonably count on the British to
| deliver justice when the higher caste rape or kill their
| family members. Nowadays if a dalit dare to speak up or
| go to a police more violence will descend upon them.
| Passing a law here or there for show or having a tribal
| as president is nothing when the culture is caste ridden.
| You can't legislate morality is what I am saying.
| cubancigar11 wrote:
| I avoid speaking here since this is an American website
| and I don't expect them to be educated about non American
| things. But you are just making shit up and I would like
| to know your motives behind it.
|
| The leaps and bounds of improvement in lives of lower
| caste people is one of the primary reason why casteism is
| not going away. Unlike racism, anyone can claim to be of
| any caste and there is literal riots happening to be
| classified as lower caste so that people can claim the
| benefit. As I said, I don't plan to start an argument
| here but you are lying and you should tell us why.
| malshe wrote:
| Citation needed. You can't just make claims without any
| supporting evidence.
| Qtips87 wrote:
| India's HDI (Human Development Index) is worse than half
| of sub-Sahara African countries. Who bear the brunt of
| this dire statistics? The higher caste or the dalits and
| the adivasis? India should spend money on this vulnerable
| people but the Modi government is talking of spending
| money to dress up the capital or other vanity projects.
| When confront Indian will readily cite they have a dalit
| president or this or that to address Western
| sensibilities but the ground reality is that Indian's
| caste culture hasn't changed. And that is the problem.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Are Dalits better off today or under the Raj? Are they
| closer to parity with upper castes in terms of education
| and health outcomes?
| malshe wrote:
| This is just your opinion. The reservations have changed
| lives of millions of lower caste people.
| lazyninja987 wrote:
| all2 wrote:
| The US civil war was a pretty impressive display of desire
| to right historical wrongs.
| winter_blue wrote:
| The US Civil War war never achieved its stated aims for
| black / previously-ensalved people. Even though the North
| won the US Civil War, because of Andrew Johnson (edit:
| not Jackson) and the ultra-conservative SCOTUS, the
| people of the US South were able to put into effect Jim
| Crow laws, and the South essentially won the war over
| whether non-white people should be treated as equal
| citizens - there's a book on this subject:
| https://www.amazon.ca/How-South-Won-Civil-
| War/dp/0190900903
| haberman wrote:
| Do you mean Rutherford B Hayes? Andrew Jackson died in
| 1845, 16 years before the civil war began.
| winter_blue wrote:
| Sorry, I meant Andrew Johnson. He kept vetoing
| progressive bills, opposed the 14th amendment, etc.
|
| Rutherford B. Hayes was horrible too, since he was the
| one who pulled federal troops out of the South (who were
| there to protect non-white people's voting rights).
|
| Honestly, the Southern states should never have been
| admitted back into the Union _as states_, but should
| rather have been annexed back as territories (with no
| federal representation). Abolitionists admitted those
| states back under the theory that blacks voting would
| result in progressive folks being elected.
|
| But we're still paying the price of that foresight today.
| If the southern states were territories, Trump & Bush
| would never have won, the Congress would have been a
| highly-progressive for the past two decades, etc.
| Honestly, even today it might be an improvement if these
| southern states just formed their own country, but with a
| free-trade and currency-sharing treaty with the rest of
| the US.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The issues are the electoral college, two senators per
| state regardless of population and gerrymandering. If we
| truly had "one person one vote", most of these problems
| would be solved
| greendave wrote:
| There's a gap between 'did not achieve its stated aims'
| and 'did not win any actual rights' that is big enough to
| drive a truck through...
|
| Also, Andrew Jackson wasn't a very nice guy, but he'd
| been dead for 28 years when the Civil War ended. Can't
| really blame him for how things worked out at that point.
| archeopetrix wrote:
| Yes, and you can consider steps taken by India to have
| had equal amount of impact if not more in the betterment
| of oppressed. It may not have been a Big Bang improvement
| like with American civil war but instead slowly over a
| few decades it has worked quite well
| all2 wrote:
| I'm always in favor of less bloodshed. On that front the
| UK and India (I think) have done a much better job than
| the US did.
| rohan_shah wrote:
| This statement makes no sense. You're putting out political
| opinions on the lives of people without any idea of the
| reality.
|
| The caste system was a part of India but every Government
| since independence has made attempts and continues to make
| everything possible to make the lives of the historically
| lower castes better off.
|
| Not to mention India was forced to become a USSR ally because
| the USA had sent their aircraft carrier in a India Pakistan
| war to support the Pakistan side. And then the USSR sent
| their aircraft carrier in India's defence.
| kube-system wrote:
| India is also a US ally: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-
| cooperation-with-india/
| alphabetting wrote:
| Definitely not ideal. Moving away from China is good but I
| wonder how much of this is PR. It wouldn't make sense to move
| given they spent $275B building up Chinese manufacturing.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/report-apple-ceo-tim...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I think more realistically zero COVID and the resulting
| supply chain shortages due to port and factory lockdowns are
| a bigger concern.
|
| Making iPhones in China is no good if you can't get them out
| to shelves in time.
| bsder wrote:
| > Moving away from China is good but I wonder how much of
| this is PR.
|
| Some of it is PR, but the reality is that wages have been
| rising in China and other countries like India are cheaper.
|
| And, Apple spent $275B as part of a _shakedown_ to avoid
| Chinese regulations. If Apple didn 't start moving their
| business after that, the people running it are fools. I
| suspect Apple would be much further along on that if Covid
| hadn't hit in the middle of this.
| r00fus wrote:
| That's a fallacy in thinking (sunk costs fallacy). If there's
| strategic risk in single-sourcing you need to diversify.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| scary
|
| At the same time, Apple is big enough it could possibly
| "disrupt" supply chains and suddenly a new manufacturing center
| somewhere else and bring the house with it?
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Yes but no matter how much money / production capacity you
| want to bring, at some point it still takes physical time to
| build all the factories and set up the whole ecosystem. 5 -
| 10 years sounds about right.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| hopefully a lot more than 10%
|
| > and it would take 8 years to move 10% of it to other
| countries
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| And here I thought globalized supply chains were "efficient" or
| something.
| cientifico wrote:
| That feels like us government planning more bans and big corps
| delaying it.
| nomel wrote:
| The US government can't ban Chinese manufacturing/assembly, in
| the short term, without completely destroying the US economy.
|
| My naive assumption is that manufacturers will reduce rusk in
| fear of the reverse: China putting up restrictions,
| requirements, and supporting straight up takeovers (ARM China).
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Zero COVID has shown that China can lock down the world's
| largest container port and without batting an eye. More
| importantly, there is no end to that policy in the
| foreseeable future.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Supply chain diversification is a good thing. No, it won't happen
| overnight, but it is happening.
| marianatom wrote:
| related:
|
| Apple begins making the iPhone 14 in India
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/apple-starts-manufacturing-t...
|
| Apple may move a quarter of iPhone production to India by 2025
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-may-move-quarter-ip...
|
| Multiple Supply Chain Risks Accelerate Reshoring, 350,000 jobs in
| 2022 https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/97116-reshoring-
| initiati...
|
| and the latest trend: friendshoring
| https://fortune.com/2022/07/19/what-is-friendshoring-janet-y...
|
| EDIT: China growth to fall behind rest of Asia for first time
| since 1990. Vietnam is predicted to lead the region with annual
| growth of 7.2%
| https://www.ft.com/content/ef425da7-0f94-484a-9f0c-40991be70...
| aperturetrust wrote:
| batter wrote:
| is this really a good strategy to keep all eggs in one basket?
| Zigurd wrote:
| A complex cutting edge product has many "one basket" items
| that have no ready substitutes. For a company with Apple's
| buying power, that is often the opportunity to demand an
| exclusive from the supplier. Cuts both ways, at least for
| Apple and other 1st tier OEMs.
| marianatom wrote:
| Not sure what you mean. All the current data is painting the
| picture of companies and factories fleeing China, and moving
| to US (reshoring, close parity in cost to China in certain
| states, clean energy act), Mexico (friendshoring, close to
| consumer), Vietnam (fastest growing, most relocations), India
| (alternative to Vietnam, huge labor force), Malaysia,
| Indonesia, Philippines, Eastern Europe...the list goes on and
| on.
| causi wrote:
| India's demographic outlook is _far_ better than China 's for the
| next two decades. I expect Apple is anticipating the resultant
| societal disruption and is trying to get out ahead of it.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Indian demographics is FAR worse than China's going forward.
| Her demographic divident is mostly done / wasted - the few
| affluent and educated states are aging out, massively
| overpopulated, under-educated and poor states are younger but
| have little prospects with atrocious labour particapation rate.
| That's a far bigger recipe for disaster than PRC who at ~5x per
| capita wealth and massive savings rate to manage demographic
| transition.
|
| Reality is, India demographics is less blessing and more curse,
| she has to tackle a far larger overpopulation crisis with fewer
| resources and opportunities. Her economic growth / ability to
| generate new jobs has rarely kept up with population growth,
| and with automation, offshoring spreading out to smaller
| countries, there won't be same amount of manufacturing jobs to
| elevate India as it did PRC. India looks to be destined to get
| old while staying lower middle-income VS PRC who will at least
| enter high income. And once the old start dying in PRC , there
| will be huge amounts of generational wealth transfers that
| analysts predict will increase / sustain highend consumption.
| What Apple is really anticipating is being squeezed out due to
| geopolitics and rise in domestic PRC luxury brands.
|
| That said, still India has 1.4B people and aggressive tariff
| policies to encourage local assembly / sales, but in terms of
| market power, there will be more high income PRC nationals vs
| Indians for Apple tax tier products, and that won't
| meaningfully converge unless India goes all in on income
| disparity.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Why are you referring to India using human pronouns ? He/her?
| You can just say "India".
| mperham wrote:
| Approximately 80% of the planet does not speak English at
| all. Be kind.
| dis-sys wrote:
| > India's demographic outlook is far better than China's for
| the next two decades.
|
| this is pretty much a polite way of saying indians are dying
| much younger while giving birth to more.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Is a growing population better with the resource constraints
| that are arriving?
| causi wrote:
| China's issue is that people who are too old to be productive
| still need to be fed, clothed, housed, doctored. An inverted
| population pyramid is not a good thing, no matter what the
| resource situation is.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| ah yes, an exclusively china issue.
| quasarsunnix wrote:
| To be fair to the post you're replying to China's
| demographic issues are more pronounced and likely to
| occur much sooner than most other large economies. The
| biggest issue being that they have never normalized
| immigration when they needed to like many western
| economies started to do in the 70s.
| volkl48 wrote:
| If you are looking for lots of prime-age workers to assemble
| stuff in a factory cheaply.....Yes?
|
| Which is better in terms of the well-being of the population
| and all that is a separate question.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| What use is a large population that is poorly educated and
| financially constrained?
|
| China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its
| increasingly wealthy, educated population.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >China's forays on the world stage are because of money and
| its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
|
| Deng Xiaoping started Chinese economic reform. You might want
| to check out China before Deng. its a poorly educated and
| financially constrained country.
|
| Do you need an educated labor force to assemble iPhone?
| sfeqcq wrote:
| > What use is a large population that is poorly educated and
| financially constrained?
|
| Sounds like China in the 1980s, when Apple first began
| manufacturing in China...
| ctrbg wrote:
| > China's forays on the world stage are because of money and
| its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
|
| That's a very reductionist point of view which glosses over
| history.
| runjake wrote:
| I wonder whether this will improve the manufacturing defects[1]
| present on all of the 5 pairs of AirPods I've purchased so far,
| and every other person's AirPods I've seen. You'd figure they
| could have robots epoxy the pieces together accurately.
|
| 1.
| https://preview.redd.it/qm6qjcwg8f251.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Ugh, my first pair was defective and I managed to get them
| replaced under warranty at the last moment. I felt super
| fortunate, but the replacements (now out of warranty) are
| having different issues. They're more functional which is nice
| I guess, but still very obnoxious.
|
| It's a shame because when they work well, I love them. By far
| the best earbuds I've ever owned -- when they work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-05 23:00 UTC)