Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#71

Post by angry_octet »

lacampbell wrote: post #7

I 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.

You are going to have to provide some references to support such an outlandish statement (of pro-Chinese discrimination being prevalent). Unless you mean that real estate agencies employ Chinese people to sell to Chinese people?

Otherwise, I'd say you're talking out your arse.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#72

Post by k_sze »

"Fuyao faces [...] a lawsuit by a former manager who says he was let go in part because he is not Chinese."

Somehow the opposite scenario could sound absurd in China. Imagine "General Motors in China faces a lawsuit by a former manager who says he was let go in part because he is not white."

I'm not implying anything. I'm just pointing out that for some reason, that scenario could sound absurd, even if irrationally so. It might not have to do with differences of the judicial systems, but with differences in value and prejudice between the two cultures.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#73

Post by nickpsecurity »

mistermann wrote: post #50
nickpsecurity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly." How many employees does he have overseas? And how much does he depend on overseas goods when generating his wealth or power despite local ones available? I have a guess on one aspect given he spends a lot of time on Twitter using a smartphone that isn't 100% Ameri…

The parent comment addressed this phenomenon, although in a different context: > A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the c…

He doesn't do manufacturing: he mainly does real estate. He also started with a pile of money. He wasn't going to go bankrupt for investing that money exclusively in local businesses (esp real estate). He just didn't care about local businesses: his personal wealth and influence goes up as he globalizes just like those he critiques.

Now, your argument can definitely apply to manufacturing. It's why I would disagree with Trump on something like that if cost is the main issue. It's not always as many U.S. manufacturing companies can attest. Even when needing cheap labor, there are countries other than China less likely to cause us trouble that we could invest in. Many U.S. companies do, too.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#74

Post by nickpsecurity »

Sunset wrote: post #63
nickpsecurity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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-…

Ah yes, all of those protectionist politicians who want to levy import taxes. Do you even listen to yourself?

Have they passed one of those with a majority Democrat or Republican Congress? Or have they just "wanted" to levy import taxes? The actual legislation seems to favor globalization over protectionism. I think TPP showed more their true colors where they tried to expand globalization but including very, specific provisions to protect the profits of very, specific companies or groups of them here. Some of those companies were themselves helping do the deal. They didn't care about American jobs: just the profits of big companies that donated to them.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#75

Post by paulmd »

andreiw wrote: post #51
TheBobinator wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the long-term, the way Americans are fighting Communism is by introducing capital to modernize China which in turn should raise a middle class and cause them to evaluate capitalism on its merits. This is part of that struggle, and an attempt to avoid a bloody war if China were to decide on rapidly modernizing like Japan did pre-WW2. So I'd say China can take their trade and their factories and shove it, but that…

So destroying America's manufacturing potential in everything from textiles, to electronics and heavy industries was all part of a scorched-earth secretive plan to fight Communism in China?

Meanwhile, back in the "reality-based community"...

https://danielmiessler.com/images/mfg1.jpg

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#76

Post by mistermann »

woodruffw wrote: post #53
mistermann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. > The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance Which the US didn't have befor…

> Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. Sure, but it's just that: speculation. The reality is that the economy and jobs market have both grown, with no aid or detriment from NAFTA. > Which the US didn't have before? If anything, the US is far less dominant now. In terms of our relationships with Mexico and Canada? We're 50% of Mexico's imports [1], and 54% of Canada's [2]. I ca…

> Sure, but it's just that: speculation. The reality is that the economy and jobs market have both grown, with no aid or detriment from NAFTA.

No effect whatsoever, the outcome with or without NAFTA would have been identical, to the penny? How might you know this?

> If this is true, then trade agreements are especially vital.

Before China entered the WTO it was a 3rd world country, now it is challenging for #1 position economically and before too long technologically. They are eating everyone's lunch because of trade agreements. This isn't to say they don't deserve this position, in many ways they do (hard work), but they also got decades of free technology research gifted to them.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#77

Post by mistermann »

whack wrote: post #70
mistermann wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China sends the US an iPhone, and the US sends dollars (paper / numbers on a screen) in return. China put a lot of work into the iPhones... what did they get? They got the opportunity to buy stuff in America with dollars! This makes it sound like every dollar from the US finds it's way "back home". China has been doing a lot of investing in other places like Africa, and China. Where does that money come from? Not A…

You've got your order reversed. China uses it's currency to buy investments in Africa. The Africans now have a bunch of Chinese currency, and clearly, they are going to do something with it. Most likely they will use it to buy consumer goods made in China. Thus creating a trade deficit that's exactly equal to the investment surplus. There's nothing mysterious or sinister about the balance of payments. It's a mathemat…

Of course the net exchange of money within the global economy must net to zero, but that's a very different thing than saying that the $ the US sends to China in exchange for manufactured goods must either be used to purchase US goods or invest in the US, as was the initial claim.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#78

Post by mistermann »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #73
mistermann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment addressed this phenomenon, although in a different context: > A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the c…

He doesn't do manufacturing: he mainly does real estate. He also started with a pile of money. He wasn't going to go bankrupt for investing that money exclusively in local businesses (esp real estate). He just didn't care about local businesses: his personal wealth and influence goes up as he globalizes just like those he critiques. Now, your argument can definitely apply to manufacturing. It's why I would disagree w…

> He doesn't do manufacturing: he mainly does real estate

Sigh....if he buys all his materials/furniture/supplies in the US in operation of his real estate business. So yes it is hypocritical, but it is basically unavoidable at this stage of the game.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#79

Post by bduerst »

litany wrote: post #23
bduerst wrote: post #6

Glass is heavy and brittle, making it both expensive and difficult to ship. Many glass mills need to be within a certain mile radius of the factories they supply because of this. NYT missed this in the article.

You're right, the article didn't mention difficulties shipping glass. It did mention that they wanted to be close to their customers though. I'm not really sure that your detail would have added anything as the article wasn't really about glass manufacturing. It could have been added with one or two sentences though.

In context to the article, my point is that Fuyao is a poor example.

The author makes it seem like Fuyao's decision to build in Ohio is part of a larger trend across verticals, when in reality the nature of the glass industry demands Fuyao building local to suppliers.

Re: Culture Clash at a Chinese-Owned Plant in Ohio

#80

Post by mywittyname »

woodruffw wrote: post #40
toomuchtodo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.

I think it's worth noting that there's a big gap in the perception of NAFTA (and its ilk) and their actual consequences. In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Different sides have presented job loss and gain in different industries over the last 20 years…

> Mexico is asymmetrically dependent upon us for trade

Bingo. All other Latin American countries grew at a decent clip in the past 20 years (5-15% per annum) versus Mexico's 1-3% over the same period of time. Mexican wheat and corn industries have been decimated by American products so they've turned to high-price exports instead.

At least we get cheap Mexican avocados for our toast.

Post reply on HN