Do companies think about the military situation over there?
What did that entail? Details welcomed!
I'm currently finishing up my Final on my Supply Chain Operations course and the focus of my research paper is the low quality PPE manufacturing that has been centralized in China, specifically the provinces outside the city outside of Wuhan, which are currently undergoing massive flood damage and causing massive disruption and delays:
My proposal is entirely theoretical, although I do conclude with utilizing possible intermediaries (currently operational) in Hong Kong and Taiwan that can support a portion of the demand as they did during the initial outbreak in January, but it currently remains an entirely unsubstantial amount of daily output to compete with China (when its fully operational) for all of the entire Western Nations needs that are currently undertaking sanctions against CCP/China. I make the argument of questionable tolerances in QC/QA, which when dealing with PPE can be deadly and a critical point of exposure to spread and increase overall infection rates.
I'd like to hear what Industry/Sector you focused on and any significant roadblocks you may have encountered if you're willing to share.
Yes, I would love to read a detailed article about what this entails
I leave this here:
You can see the main thrust of this initiative under the "Made in China 2025" initiative.
If anything, their policies over the last 40 years were effective at raising many people out of destitute poverty. That said, there's enough people doing well enough that competition for the worst jobs is decreasing, forcing wages higher.
Coupled with China's disregard for basic IP rights, environmental regulations, worker protections, and other rights we in the West fought for over the last century and beyond, it's no wonder people are jumping out while they can.
This is not a bad thing. China has successfully climbed up the value chain, as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong did before them. Now it’s the turn of other countries like Vietnam. It’s how hundreds of millions of people have risen out of poverty.
Fair is a complicated thing to figure out. We are traversing the tree in level order. That’s why vast sectors of each economy (nodes) get left behind.
I don’t think Vietnam should have to wait until we traverse the entirety of US and Chinese economy, there has to be a hybrid (holistic) approach to this.
These are the tough questions I guess. The global economy is stuck in a awful Leetcode question, and there’s no way out.
Cheap labor seekers are going to cheaper parts of India (but that won't stay cheap for long), Africa, Indonesia, etc. Africa is establishing some kind of union to reduce concerns about stability, and if that works we will see the 80s-90s in China repeated there.
Someday there won't be any large pools of cheap labor left. Unless automation is much cheaper by then, we will see massive inflation in manufactured goods.
Also: if Africa industrializes and we don't have cheap fossil fuel alternatives, we should just start moving Miami and building the New York Sea Wall. Another half billion to billion people will be joining the new global middle class, and after centuries of colonialism Africa is not going to listen to Westerners asking them nicely to stay poor so we can meet a CO2 target.
And automation? Well, a lack of cheap labor will make more expensive automation as well as research worthwhile. So more will be automated.
Probably won't have to worry much. China's CO2 emissions per capita are still far below that of the US.
1. Educated people (most former communist countries have fewer analphabets than the US)
2. Tons of people
3. Infrastructure and clustering.
4. The political will to move forward.
You won't see this in Africa. India is possible but unlikely.
Take the down-votes in stride. Topics about China often stir-up strong political emotions.
I think your points are generally right but vastly oversimplifies the situation.
>1. Educated people (most former communist countries have fewer analphabets than the US)
Literacy != education. In the USA, we used to talk about the 3 R's: reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. That's the base level. I would equate education with higher-level thought processes developed in college. Re communist countries: yes, this is where communist control can be effective, but it also stifles creative thought (are you really sure the state's education regime is correct?)
>2. Tons of people
Certainly helpful, when used correctly. Definitely drives the cost of labor lower, though (simple supply-demand relationship).
>3. Infrastructure and clustering.
To an extent, sure, but the infrastructure development is more a consequence of the large amounts of people. Also, you get more bang for the buck when you build infrastructure there because so many people now live in population centers.
>4. The political will to move forward.
This is the primary point I would say is wrong. We have plenty of political will in the USA. However, we also have much clearer legal separation between private and public companies. The CCP holds a very different view on how private companies should exist. We in the USA theoretically can block companies from operating in certain countries, but we choose to not do so in most cases. Liberty is much more protected in the USA, which may hurt short term but works best long term.
As to your projections:
>won't see this in Africa
I presently agree, but no one expected China to do as well as it has 50 years ago.
>India is possible but unlikely
As China and India continue their border clashes, they will grow more distant. I expect the West to align with India than China, given than Indian values more closely align with the West.
It doesn't have to get to 100% before you decide the cons outweigh the pros, it just has to be less cheap.