Reminds me of what happened in the 1980s with Japanese buyouts of American TV manufacturers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c
I don't know if history offers any good solutions here though.
Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
11–20 of 86 posts
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#12China is a gigantic investor in the USA. Whenever you hear the term "trade deficit" that the US has to China, there is an identical amount in "investment surplus" that the US gets from China. That investment is everywhere - in our stock market, in our government debt, in our real estate and in our Ohio Windshield plants. Every time you buy an iPhone, you're handing China hundreds of dollars which they then invest in…
The author of your link keeps repeating that things will balance simply because they will balance. That sounds like "what I say is true because I say it is true." Is there proof of this beyond the author's mere assertions?
Also, the author says we pay for stuff that turns into capital for them. They use that capital to create more businesses or own more stuff here. That doesn't sound like it's going to balance for the U.S.. It sounds more like they'll progressively have more ownership, market share, and revenues over time.
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those jobs were historically there to begin with, then tooling + process + jobs were shipped overseas because that was cheaper, the resulting trade surplus made it possible for the Chinese to ship the factory back to the United States. The big question then is can they remain profitable in the long run if they do things the US way, and if they can why couldn't the same plant be owned and operated by Americans?
"and if they can why couldn't the same plant be owned and operated by Americans?" You already know the answer to that. It's why they shipped the jobs overseas in the first place. In many cases, the workers even keep voting for the kinds of people that do it. I especially found it amusing that Trump was appealing as a capitalist to workers whose jobs were lost due to capitalism like this. Many of these areas are self-…
Workers voted for Trump because he was the only candidate who offered to help them, regardless if he was lying.
I wouldn't be amused; it's a canary in a coal mine (no pun intended).
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#14China is a gigantic investor in the USA. Whenever you hear the term "trade deficit" that the US has to China, there is an identical amount in "investment surplus" that the US gets from China. That investment is everywhere - in our stock market, in our government debt, in our real estate and in our Ohio Windshield plants. Every time you buy an iPhone, you're handing China hundreds of dollars which they then invest in…
The author of your link keeps repeating that things will balance simply because they will balance. That sounds like "what I say is true because I say it is true." Is there proof of this beyond the author's mere assertions? Also, the author says we pay for stuff that turns into capital for them. They use that capital to create more businesses or own more stuff here. That doesn't sound like it's going to balance for th…
I suppose you could look at it in the classical economic sense. I give you $1 because I value it less than a cheeseburger. You give me a cheeseburger because you value it less than a $1.
I don't think that means things even out between US and China. But I do think it means things even out overall. We may "lose" with China and "win" with others. But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they want to spend it) I can't see how a trade deficit/surplus will ever affect them.
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author of your link keeps repeating that things will balance simply because they will balance. That sounds like "what I say is true because I say it is true." Is there proof of this beyond the author's mere assertions? Also, the author says we pay for stuff that turns into capital for them. They use that capital to create more businesses or own more stuff here. That doesn't sound like it's going to balance for th…
I suppose you could look at it in the classical economic sense. I give you $1 because I value it less than a cheeseburger. You give me a cheeseburger because you value it less than a $1. I don't think that means things even out between US and China. But I do think it means things even out overall. We may "lose" with China and "win" with others. But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they w…
The US model right now is is exporting cash and hard assets in exchange for mostly consumable goods. It's a pretty obvious bad idea.
It's ok in the sense that it isn't a moral hazard. But it's bad in that we're exporting our wealth and hollowing out the country.
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#16China is a gigantic investor in the USA. Whenever you hear the term "trade deficit" that the US has to China, there is an identical amount in "investment surplus" that the US gets from China. That investment is everywhere - in our stock market, in our government debt, in our real estate and in our Ohio Windshield plants. Every time you buy an iPhone, you're handing China hundreds of dollars which they then invest in…
Every time you buy an iPhone, a tiny amount of that money stays in China. Here are then numbers for 2010: http://pcic.merage.uci.edu/papers/2011/value_ipad_iphone.pdf
See Figure 1.
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#17I am glad that in some countries there is still an ethos of standing up for your own citizens. I couldn't imagine any action being taken against a Chinese company for discriminatory hiring practices in New Zealand or Australia, where such discrimination is rampant, not only in employment but also in real estate.
I dunno. Reading this article left a bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't the Chinese that turned a large portion of industrial America into a rusty meth-infused wasteland, yet it is the Chinese that are opening these factories. I applaud a desire to maintain safety standards, but if it wasn't for Fuyao, there wouldn't be anyone to unionize, you know?
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose you could look at it in the classical economic sense. I give you $1 because I value it less than a cheeseburger. You give me a cheeseburger because you value it less than a $1. I don't think that means things even out between US and China. But I do think it means things even out overall. We may "lose" with China and "win" with others. But ultimately, as long as people are spending their own money (as they w…
The US model right now is is exporting cash and hard assets in exchange for mostly consumable goods. It's a pretty obvious bad idea. It's ok in the sense that it isn't a moral hazard. But it's bad in that we're exporting our wealth and hollowing out the country.
I question the comment about not being a moral hazard. It's almost like a free-rider problem, but shifted in time instead of person.
Not saying you're wrong, just questioning it's assumption in economics.
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#19It's somewhat surprising for the NYT to put forward the proposition that ethnocentrism and disregard for worker safety is a part of Chinese culture, but I guess I'll take their new wokeness as a sign of progress.
I think it's worth pointing out that this appears to be mainly Chinese culture from the mainland. Chinese from other areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be completely different. When I visited Taipei I was pleasantly surprised to see how polite these people were, they lined up in queues to board their subway!
Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio
#20Out of curiosity, is it a common practice to require foreign companies opening American branches to have a "predominantly American management corps"?
I always assumed that multi-national companies tend to send executives from their headquarters for strategic decision making, and only hire local managers for execution.