Andy Grove: How To Make An American Job Before It's Too Late

My real point, though, is that consolidation is inevitable. Production jobs ("Scaling," etc.) are going to become less important over time, not more important, whether they're in China or America. Any forward-looking argument that doesn't take that fact into account is flawed from the outset, and I think Grove's piece falls into that category.

Is it really healthy for Silicon Valley if Apple has a factory cranking out iPhones in Cupertino, Google has a 99%-identical factory for Droids in Mountain View, and Palm has yet another factory producing Pres in Sunnyvale? What's the point? The hardware's all very similar from a production viewpoint, or it soon will be. In a rational business climate, all of these products would be made on the same line, by a company that sells manufacturing capability to the highest bidder. Competition will happen on a purely IP-based playing field, not on the factory floor.

Going back to the Tektronix example, when Tektronix finished one of those CRTs, they practically had a one-of-a-kind relic on their hands, a part that would not only not fit in any one else's oscilloscope, but could in most cases be used only in a single model in their own product line. They didn't have what we'd call excess capacity, and if they did, they darned sure wouldn't use it selling excess tubes to the competition, because those tubes were a big part of what made their overall product competitive. So every manufacturer of those particular widgets had to either build their own CRTs or buy them from a common vendor (in which case their scopes sucked).

Tektronix in 1960 couldn't afford to treat production as a red-headed stepchild in their overall business plan... but they sure can today, when the bulk of the test equipment they sell is OEM'ed out of China just like everything else. Sorry, but IMHO, the production of solar panels, portable fusion reactors, or whatever is just going to take the same inevitable course. The business will be commoditized if it prospers at all. Trade policies and externalities have absolutely nothing to do with that.

And use it to do more ... hedge funding.

Then perhaps the more accurate statement would be that food would be all they'd be able to afford. At that point, options are really, really cheap (and incredibly toxic) fast food, or buying some sort of staple in bulk like rice or grains. And if you don't have a roof over your head, it won't do you much good to spend 2/3rds of your monthly salary on a big bag of rice from Costco.

When you become a director of a company you have a legal duty to "enhance shareholder value" thats the only rule.

Anything else you do, every hire, every contract, every charity donation must be justifiable in this context - unless you enjoy shareholder lawsuits.

I know I am repeating myself#, but why do we make more stuff? To make even more stuff?

Isn't all of this a really circular argument? I am really sorry, but I am extremely confused about what you are trying to say over here. :(

I know it's extremely stupid of me to ask this, but how is any method of mass production built upon exploiting people whether they are on a piece of land called the united states of america, or china or india help anyone in the longer term?

# http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1479902

----

Edit: I am sorry if this strikes you as an inane question/off-topic, but I ask this for a reason. The OP states that;

>>>To me, it's obvious what the future of mass production will look like, but it's not at all clear how to stave off a future where 10% of us are shouldering the entire productivity burden for the rest of the country.That is the conclusion only if you accept that the only way for us to function is to make more new stuff and to consume that new stuff. I somehow don't understand that.

I cannot understand why we have accepted an endless cycle that dwindles our resources as the only means to make a contribution? How do you define the value of all of these things that we churn out in the longer term? By measuring their impact on human beings? By their impact on the environment? By their impact on us? By productivity increased through that device? Some standard of living increased for the shorter term by it?

I want to make beautiful things, but I have to ask myself the question; am I creating wealth? Some would argue that wall street creates wealth (parts of it certainly do, but not all of it). However, everything here is dependent on the assumption that the money that is being generated here is wealth, and that the only way to do this is by earning more money. The only way to do that is to make and sell more stuff, which leads to more money, and so on.

I am not saying manufacturing is evil. It isn't. Neither is capitalism or any other ideology. I am merely questioning the ends for which it is being used. People have argued over the centuries that an action itself is stripped of being right and wrong, but it is the context in which it is performed, due to what intention and what effect that makes it good or evil.

So, as someone who doesn't know anything I just want to ask; why?

I am truly sorry if this is something not suited for this space.