Fui colecionando, a este propósito, alguns artigos. São todos muito interessantes, e carreando muito material para reflexão: o bold é meu .
It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in
the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts
estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology
manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each
iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars
per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the
company a healthy reward.
But such calculations are, in many respects, meaningless because
building the iPhone in the United States would demand much more than
hiring Americans — it would require transforming the national and global
economies. Apple executives believe there simply aren’t enough American
workers with the skills the company needs or factories with sufficient
speed and flexibility. Other companies that work with Apple, like
Corning, also say they must go abroad. [....]
Wages weren’t
the major reason for the disparities. Rather it was costs like inventory
and how long it took workers to finish a task. [....]
In the past decade, the flow of goods emerging from U.S. factories has
risen by about a third. Factory employment has fallen by roughly the
same fraction. The story of Standard Motor Products, a 92-year-old,
family-run manufacturer based in Queens, sheds light on both phenomena.
It’s a story of hustle, ingenuity, competitive success, and promise for
America’s economy. It also illuminates why the jobs crisis will be so
difficult to solve.
Politicians say we have the most productive workers in the world. They don't know what they're talking about.
Alternatively, companies can cut costs by seeking
out cheaper suppliers around the world—to use the business school term,
they can engage in global supply chain management. A U.S.-based
computer company can lower its costs by moving its customer call center
from South Dakota to India. Walmart can shift its clothing purchases
from a Chinese shirt manufacturer to a cheaper supplier in Vietnam.
Apple can find a cheaper offshore supplier for its iPhone display
screen.
But here’s the rub: both of these corporate strategies— domestic
productivity improvements and global supply chain management—show up as
productivity gains in U.S. economic records. When federal statisticians
calculate the nation’s economic output, what they are actually measuring
is domestic “value added”—the dollar value of all sales minus the
dollar value of all imports. “Productivity” is then calculated by
dividing the quantity of value added by the number of American workers.
American workers, however, often have little to do with the gains in
productivity attributed to them. For instance, if Company A saves
$250,000 simply by switching from a Japanese sprocket supplier to a much
cheaper Chinese sprocket supplier, that change shows up as an increase
in American productivity—just as if the company had saved $250,000 by
making its warehouse operation in Chicago more efficient.[....]
[....] David Ignatius is one of the people who works in this industry. His Post
column today urges readers to contemplate the awful thought that, quoting Francis Fukuyama:"What if the further development of technology and
globalization undermines the middle class and makes it impossible for
more than a minority of citizens in an advanced society to achieve
middle-class status?”
It is very useful to the One Percent to pretend that their
wealth and the near stagnation in living standards for everyone else is
just the result of "the further development of technology and
globalization." However this has nothing to do with reality. Globalization has hurt the living standards of the middle
class... In the same vein it is not technology by itself that has made
some people very rich. It is largely government granted patent and
copyright monopolies that have made people rich. These polices are
becoming increasingly inefficient mechanisms for supporting innovation
and creative work. [....]
In the past 30 years, the UK's manufacturing sector has shrunk by
two-thirds, the greatest de-industrialisation of any major nation. It
was done in the name of economic modernisation – but what has replaced
it? [....]
