Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what capitalism does. Crossing borders might make things easier because laws and the cost of doing business will vary, but using your power to squeeze every cent you possibly can out of your business partners is a function of capitalism and not globalism.
No, mercantilist and imperialist societies (Roman Empire, British Empire) did this long before the modern era of private capital. Capitalism is just another in a long line of systems under which wealth and power concentrates into the hands of a few and the many are disadvantaged. The only new thing here is the degree to which technology can extend lines of communication and trade.
iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
141–150 of 170 posts
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so what do people expect the alternative route is? It's a known strategy, that works, and increases profit if implemented correctly.
The alternative route people would prefer is for people in charge of these companies to act ethically and not try to squeeze everyone around them for every cent of profit possible. Especially if you're already one of the richest companies to ever exist. That's not very realistic, though, since sociopathy is essentially taught in business schools now.
> Especially if you're already one of the richest companies to ever exist.
How do you think they got there in the first place?
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative route people would prefer is for people in charge of these companies to act ethically and not try to squeeze everyone around them for every cent of profit possible. Especially if you're already one of the richest companies to ever exist. That's not very realistic, though, since sociopathy is essentially taught in business schools now.
This. And I'd add, we'd like a legal environment that rewards people and companies who act in this way over those companies that act unethically in pursuit of profit.
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#144Apple does help its suppliers to make a profit -- but the amount of profit that sustains a healthy set of vendors for Apple, at quality levels and corporate practice levels that Apple evaluates as "fair". Now, you may criticize that this holds vendors over a barrel and squeezes them to narrow margins, etc. But at least give Apple credit for having a view to the long run and trying to create a pool of vendors that it…
Vendor says they can't make profit. Wall-of-texter on HN says they can.. So hard to know who to believe..
I’m not sure either are a great source to be honest.
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, mercantilist and imperialist societies (Roman Empire, British Empire) did this long before the modern era of private capital. Capitalism is just another in a long line of systems under which wealth and power concentrates into the hands of a few and the many are disadvantaged. The only new thing here is the degree to which technology can extend lines of communication and trade.
What do you suggest as an alternative to our imperfect capitalism?
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not my experience at all. It's even used by sports announcers. As an example: "The offense needs to move with more sense of urgency given the clock."
In the workplace it's deployed against those with a blunted affect, ie on the autism or ADHD spectrum. If you're not visibly freaking out with everyone else, it's because you don't care. Sports probably doesn't have the same numbers of these populations as tech.
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> worked for MNC in PRC tend to like their SKR bosses and frequently hated TW bosses simply because cultural overlap allowed them to push harder. With SKR they could at least feign ignorance with language barrier but TBH still got their work done Haha yep, I've heard similar stories in Vietnam as well. Idk why but Taiwanese/Malaysian/Singaporean management culture is absolutely atrocious compared to Japanese+SK manag…
I use to think it was narcissism of small differences, Sino-sphere cultures hating on each other but from what I hear in Vietnam, they're jerks to everyone. Even PRC firms in Viet did not seem to have _that_ bad of reputation to work for. > India System Does lobbying power from Tata or Adani influence over said politics? Seems like they have competence and connections to take over failed foreign ventures. Not implyin…
It seems like the older generation of Taiwanese who came to age in the 70s and 80s have a bit of a superiority complex over the rest of poor Asia.
Tbf, Koreans and Japanese do as well (Korean and Japanese investors in ASEAN are total sleezeballs in my experience), but due to manpower constraints they at least try to develop local institutional capacity, while Taiwanese companies could always resort to hiring from within the PRC or the ASEAN Chinese diaspora.
> Does lobbying power from Tata or Adani influence over said politics?
Business lobbying within India is similar to that which happens in PRC. The same way you'd have local companies that are indirectly connected to local prefecture leaders (eg. The entire Construction industry within China), a similar thing exists in India.
That said, a lot of this is highly dependent on industry. High Value Sectors such as Pharmaceuticals, ICT, Petrochemicals, Automotive, Banking, and Green Technology can largely bypass all the local lobbying bullshit because the state and federal regulators for those tend to have domain experience because of 40-50 years of regulatory harmonization thanks to guidance from Japan (via the ADB), US (via the WB and Diaspora Academics), SK (via Look South), Israel (mostly under the radar but Israeli advisors are pretty prominent within Indian policymaking circles), and Australia (Australia 2035). That said, the industries listed above tend to not hire as much.
In labor heavy industries such as low skilled manufacturing, assembly, agriculture, construction, mining, etc you will face an extreme amount of lobbying and backroom dealing due to how heavily dependent such industries are to local laws and regulations, and also because they directly impact actual voters, plus direct action is a very common occurrence (often with tacit support from the local opposition - could be from any party be it BJP, INC, AAP, etc).
That said, this happens A LOT in China as well, it just isn't noticed in English media because any coverage of such events would be in Mandarin and on Chinese platforms such as Weibo, WeChat, Douyin, etc, while Indian coverage surrounding labor strife will occur in English on western platforms like FB, IG, etc.
Tl;dr - in my experience institutional and business norms in the PRC and India are actually pretty similar. In some cases, Chinese regulation is better than Indian ones but in other cases Indian regulations trump Chinese ones (VERY industry dependent)
> US automaker Ford, UK banking major Royal Bank of Scotland, US bikemaker Harley-Davidson and US banking behemoth Citibank have chosen to pull the plug their operations in India or downsize their presence here in recent years.
The US companies mentioned are divesting because there's an ongoing trade war between India and US (US wants India to open the agriculture sector to American imports, Indian politicians obviously don't want that as it undermines a critical voting block). This has lead to "India applied retaliatory tariffs of an additional 10% to 25%" on American goods [0]. There is a similar trade war going on with the UK as well.
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Singapore on the other hand have implemented free trade agreements with India years ago and Israel+France have had economic pacts since the early 2000s, so unsurprisingly it's MNCs from these countries that tend to have an oversized impact in India (though within the ICT sector American companies still remain strong because of the point I made above).
In my experience, Japanese involvement hasn't really stopped in India (in fact it seems to keep growing). It's just not visible if you don't work in infrastructure - Japanese MNCs tend to dominate in Green Tech and Infrastructure projects such as the highway system, hydrogen cell R&D, automotive, and the train electrification project (already at 80% due to Pandemic era construction).
Whenever I'd visit India, I'd often see highways with signs saying "Built courtesy of grants from the Government of Japan".
This isn't to say that doing business as an MNC in India is easy - it isn't - but if you follow the right path (for example, make a Singapore, Mauritius, or UAE based corporation that has a majority ownership stake of the Indian subsidiary) it's not as difficult. Most Asian countries have done that for FDI within India, but less adept American companies seemed to have a preference and more experience with running operations from HK instead of SG.
What HK is to PRC, that's what SG, Marutius, and UAE are to India.
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a sense of urgency I've never heard this phrase from anyone that wasn't nakedly seeking power and compliance from others.
I first heard it from the military, where training seeks to recreate the stressful fast-pace conditions of an actual battle or war. Years later I started hearing it in business too, as if management circles thought it would be useful in increasing production rates. Not accounting for the fact that levels of urgency similar to military training may not be sustainable in peacetime, and result in workforce burnout and o…
Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#149Re: iPhone maker Wistron quits, saying Apple didn't let it make a profit
#150a similar situation just happened between Nvidia and EVGA. NVidia makes the chips, And So, holds all the bargaining chips so to speak, and EVGA is just the board partner that has to find some way to make the price work. At some point it becomes impossible and they have to actually walk away in order to not be taken advantage of. We know this much, and I'm going to assume the situation was similar here with Apple and…
I think the Nvidia/EVGA situation might be a little different in that it looks like Nvidia is intentionally trying to squeeze out board partners like EVGA in favor of self-branded cards. The closer parallel is probably when Apple killed the Mac clone program by making it extremely difficult for clone makers to compete.