Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#231

Post by tanilama » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224

tanilama wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We never expected China to be able to manage domestic risk well Well, they have seemingly largely recovered and move their way back to normalcy, as other countries started catching fire. I think a lot of people's takeways will be different than yours: China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors.

> China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors. Their ability to control the crisis is useful from a public health perspective, but they're doing it by shutting down production. Look at how the markets have responded. Are you claiming investors wouldn't have been better off if these companies had invested in a more diversified supply chain? For that matter, havi…

There is a critical flaw in this thinking.

Other countries will catch the virus at some point too.

Without stringent measures, it will take more time for other countries to come back from it. In other words, China becomes safer after this.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#232

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #70

lutorm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a net good effect in terms of resiliency, in the long term... Well, this is the problem, right. Resiliency only pays off when there's a crisis, otherwise it's a net cost. So if you're outcompeted by the other non-resilient companies before that crisis happens, it doesn't help. I feel like societal resiliency needs to be rewarded (in many contexts, utilities are obvious but also food supply, etc) but I don't k…

taxes and tariffs are there to shape the market, not to make entrepreneurs poorer.

Iunno, taxes seem to encourage being born into wealth, and otherwise punish working the most severely.

And if you have to spend most of your income on stuff, you too proportionately pay more sales tax than someone with excess to invest.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#233

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

tanilama wrote: post #167

I used to be a globalist myself, which I still am, but I think globalization needs its urgent refactoring. Not all industries need to be fully globalized, and it is better every country keep some share of production to itself to account for emergency situation like this virus. Globalization had trade off robustness for efficiency, it is time to scale that back.

“Centralize production/operations in China” is the opposite of globalization.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#234

Post by monocasa » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

allovernow wrote: post #228

beaunative wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The virus can still kill you no matter how 'free' you feel you are. I'm pretty sure dead people are much more freer than us as they don't have to think about any of these non-sense.

You're missing the point. The freedom may make the virus less likely to spread as information about it is easier to come by. The more people know and the sooner, the better off we all are.

The White House just made coronavirus planning classified. And in such a capricious way, that critical staff were excluded from meetings. Not sure how America's "freedom" is helping here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-secrec...

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#235

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #119

throwaway_Bees wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>None of the local Verizon stores had any phones (11 Pro Max) in stock (they explicitly said it was due to China supply chain) That may be true...but it may be just as likely they are minimizing their own inventory to keep their own costs down/cash on hand, which is not something they would freely tell their own employees or customers.

I've heard that new Apple employees aren't getting any equipment because they don't have any to give. I ordered an Apple watch on March 3rd and it won't arrive until March 24th. I'm pretty sure they are having serious supply chain issues.

My thought is that cargo capacity is down a lot without passenger jets flying around.

And cargo operations staff may be reluctant to fly to China.

Staff wouldn’t be permitted to stay on the aircraft until takeoff. And would likely violate hours of service anyway.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#236

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #36

core-questions wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which will lead to an explosion of available labour, ready for hiring when things pick back up. The issue is whether governments will step in to provide sufficient unemployment / welfare benefits to bridge the gap.

Ahh yes, the benefits of mass unemployment and businesses shuttering! Always look on the bright side of life! https://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M

Finally, a 24-hour work week.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#237

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

tmpz22 wrote: post #104

londons_explore wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to think that if there is a recession, there are still the same number of people , and there are still the same number of hospital beds . Hospitals will just reduce their prices, because it's preferable to do that than leave beds empty.

The problem isn't admittance or treatment the problem is the bill that comes in the mail 6 months later, as well as massive decline in spending, decline in social interactions, decline in nutritional choices, and the injection of the 2020 political circus towards the end of the year (in the US).

All solvable problems. Even in a recession. With political will...

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#238

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

tanilama wrote: post #231

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China's ability to control crisis like this scale is going to be valuable assets to global investors. Their ability to control the crisis is useful from a public health perspective, but they're doing it by shutting down production. Look at how the markets have responded. Are you claiming investors wouldn't have been better off if these companies had invested in a more diversified supply chain? For that matter, havi…

There is a critical flaw in this thinking. Other countries will catch the virus at some point too. Without stringent measures, it will take more time for other countries to come back from it. In other words, China becomes safer after this.

But that's exactly why diversification works. If you have manufacturing only in China and China shuts down, you lose. If you have manufacturing in both China and Mexico and China shuts down, you manufacture in Mexico. If six months later China is back online and Mexico is in quarantine, you manufacture in China.

Having presence in multiple regions lets you keep going the whole time. Having presence in only one region doesn't.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#239

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

parliament32 wrote: post #164

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn't want a $400 locally knitted sweater, made from neighborhood sheep. They wanted a $40 sweater that was made as efficiently as possible, and $360 of change. Except that the difference was never that large and never had to be that local. What happened was that they didn't want a $42 sweater made on the same continent over a $40 sweater made on the other side of the world, because it gave back $2 in change.…

>the different was never that large Here's a basic sweater for $3.19: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/women-s-autumn-clothi... Find me one made in the US within a factor of 10 of that price.

The link you've posted to includes several deliberate misrepresentations (aka lies) about the nature of the product (i.e., claiming it is cashmere when it's just cotton-polyester).

In LA's fashion district I can find you a locally made cotton-polyester sweater for under $10, and the seamstress is making a living at that price and using quality cotton-polyester fibers rather than the scratchy cheap QA-rejects. I could probably even find an actual cashmere sweater for under $50, made out of cashmere wool.

Re: Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

#240

Post by powowowow » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #214

twblalock wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people can't afford a $400 sweater. What are they supposed to do? Local manufacturing is for rich people who can afford it.

A lot of now-developed countries had 100% domestic textile production 60-70 years ago and yet nobody went naked (OK not 0% obviously but very few). People owned fewer pieces of clothing overall, but everyone could still afford to be clothed. If textile manufacturing became 100% local again, local wages would also rise by a similar amount. $400 wouldn't seem unaffordable for a sweater. Or the sweater would cost corres…

Americans used to spend 15% of household income on clothing, and they got fewer items of clothing in return.

I understand that you think it best if the government force me to support my inefficient local textile manufacturer, my local cotton mill, and my local cotton grower. However I don't think that's best.