From a recent BBC story:

"The Planning Commission has told India's Supreme Court that an individual income of 25 rupees (52 cents) a day would help provide for adequate "private expenditure on food, education and health" in the villages.

In the cities, it said, individual earnings of 32 rupees a day (66 cents) were adequate." See BBC

I am not saying that it is right, but it is what it is.

Ian

Exactly. And in China, where the vast majority of factory workers are young folks from the countryside, it's safe to say none of them moved to the cities to work in factories so they could make less money than they did in the countryside.

What if the Chinese way of thinking were applied in America? Would those shrewd Chinese policy-makers notice that our manufacturing sector is on the ropes, and that our strength these days is our robust consumer market. Methinks they would notice this, and leverage that important asset. They're not like us. They don't see things in terms of what's "fair play." They focus on what will work. Right now, access to American consumer markets should be unquestioned for American manufacturers. For other manufacturers......conditioned.

If we only consumed what we produced, we'd eat very well, we'd send less of our money overseas and we'd all be working.

you want to screw with China?... send them our unions and our EPA.

Dollar for dollar the US produces more than China.

We still have a robust manufacturing sector in Australia despite what you might read in the papers.
The UK is still making stuff. About 8% of their working population is employed by the manufacturing sector. It used to be over 25%

If Chinese are happy making my underwear and socks then good luck to them. ;)

One thing that does bother me is inadequate/deceptive labelling of a product and its country of origin.
If in doubt I simply won't buy it.

This is a bit of a non-starter, since the Chinese gov't. doesn't have to worry about elections. And so they don't make any effort to appease certain voting blocs or make endless promises with other people's money. Ironically, however, I think they try a lot harder to get out in front of problems than our own leaders do. Our own politicians only care about the next election. That's not even a consideration in China. And as harsh as it sounds, they don't wring their hands about bulldozing a village to make way for a factory that will produce far more wealth for the country than that village will. Our current regime is perfectly willing to throw 1000 Boeing employees in SC out of work just to teach them a lesson and buy some more union support. That stuff doesn't happen in China.

Look at some of the resumes I have and sit in on some of the interviews I have.

The stuff I've seen is downright disheartening and some of it truly angers me, since some of the applicants I've evaluated have had similar "paper credentials" to my own (same degree), yet were utterly clueless about basic technical issues, code issues, construction methods or how to coordinate work across disciplines. The ability to apply knowledge in a practical way is sorely lacking in many graduates I'm sorry to say... Not all, but certainly a noticeable percentage. This devalues MY degree by watering it down and dragging down the expectations associated therewith. Grr.

A college degree has become what a High School Diploma used to be. Same education at 10X the price. Maybe even less education at more than 10X the price - again a generalization but I'm pretty disgusted by what the "college education industry" has become in general - an overpriced degree mill where actual skills and abilities are supplanted with liberal opinions, touchy-feely political correctness and conjecture. Again, this is another discussion and I'll start another thread when I get a minute.

"A college degree has become what a High School Diploma used to be."

Yes - I do not agree with the stuff following that tho.

Also, understand that in part this is b/c a much greater % of the popn is going to college now.

Are these Arch. students? If not, then what field?

new thread = good idea

We're saying the same thing. Chinese have the 'nads and the vision to focus on what will achieve the goal(s). If they were put in charge of our economy, there is no question in my mind they would limit access to our markets.

A trade war is a war nonetheless. And wars often have a very unpredictable outcome. A major trade war certainly would. The tit for tat repercussions - from current major 'friendly' trade partners let alone the 'enemy' - would be devastating.

Ian

China needs our consumers. America needs China's inexpensive products.
The difference is that China has the resources to hold out until we cave in or go belly up.

We could make them a great deal on exploding chopsticks.

I've been reading too much David Thorne.

Is any of this really necessary? The tide is shifting back the other way already without tariffs.

China labour costs push jobs back to US - FT.com

Testify brother, testify.

yea. that's american public mentality though. even our C students are supposed to be smarter than asian A's cause we got better education (which anyone worth their salt knows its completely totally the opposite)

My boss was telling me about some Chinese neighbors of his whose kids are his kids' age, but are star students in every subject and child prodigy musicians. My boss asked the mom if they ever considered moving back to China and she said they would love to, but she's worried her kids don't have the work ethic and could just never compete in school there.

If I were 22, and if I understood this post, I would poop my pants with fear.

when my nephews in china were in middle school, high school entrance exams are the big thing. akin to ACT/SAT here. they would disappear for better part of 6 months to study.

school/exams/education > social life is drilled in by asian parents.

While this article is not right on topic, it seems to fit in to me. It was posted a couple of months ago in PPOT, but I cannot remember who brought it to my attention.

Is anything made in the U.S.A. anymore? You'd be surprised - The New York Times