America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back

Post by rlpb » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 1:03 AM UTC

charlie0 wrote: post #920

rlpb wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Staff who’ve been around a while, understand how a company operates and can seed that understanding into new staff are more valuable to companies. For example: if every worker were replaced with an equally skilled worker tomorrow a company regardless would not be able to function. It therefore makes sense that a senior employee can demand a higher wage [than a new starter] even if their direct productivity is no diff…

If you replaced every worker with someone else of equal skill of course manufacturing company would continue to operate. Making employees replaceable cogs is what industrialization was completely about. It's what happened during globalization. Think about all those seniors who lost their jobs when the factory went overseas. That was successful in large part because the distinction between a junior and a senior is not…

Post by aleph_minus_one » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 1:44 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #919

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you’re describing is monstrously expensive I would actually consider this to be an desirable side effect: if you want governments to enforce your monopoly using their state authority, you better pay for this really well. :-)

So you'd prefer there be no protection for inventors who aren't already wealthy?

Post by hakfoo » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 3:01 AM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #703

glitchc wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concur, employee training and retention are at an all-time low. There are no positions available for junior employees, minimal onboarding and mentoring of new employees. Organizations have stopped planning people's careers. Used to be that the employee's career growth was their manager's problem, while the employee could focus on the work. Now the employee must market themselves as often, if not more often, than actu…

> minimal onboarding and mentoring of new employees. Organizations have stopped planning people's careers. I hear from all the much more senior devs about how they learned OOP in company training after years of C, or how their employers would give bonuses for finished projects, and that sort of thing. I always seem to join the ship when the money train and training train leaves the boat. I think R&D for tax reasons n…

Post by ninetyninenine » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:07 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #912

ninetyninenine wrote: post #494

[flagged]

You're right: it's a bit racist. It's also faulty reasoning: you went to a high school in Cupertino with a markedly higher population of second-generation Asian-Americans, and went to a high school in an extraordinarily wealthy area; in fact, I think you might be attempting to generalize from the zip code with the highest density of immigrant professionals in the United States. If you want to generalize from China, t…

Post by silisili » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 6:18 AM UTC

rlpb wrote: post #921

charlie0 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you replaced every worker with someone else of equal skill of course manufacturing company would continue to operate. Making employees replaceable cogs is what industrialization was completely about. It's what happened during globalization. Think about all those seniors who lost their jobs when the factory went overseas. That was successful in large part because the distinction between a junior and a senior is not…

> If you replaced every worker with someone else of equal skill of course manufacturing company would continue to operate. No it wouldn't, because a senior worker wouldn't be around to say things like "oh yes we use a jig under this circumstance that we keep over here ". Every business has ton of institutional knowledge like that.