PDX Dad

Apple, America, and the Loss of U.S. Jobs

For everyone who doesn’t understand why companies move jobs overseas (hint: It’s not just the wages). And for those who don’t understand why the government can’t do anything about those jobs.

I’ve worked in international trade so much, I don’t even really see where the questions come from. It’s pretty self-evident when one looks at the actual facts and numbers. We do not have the production base with the technically skilled workers needed for such large-scale production. We’re on the wrong end of the supply-chain. We have a different mentality on mobility, work ethics, and needs.

That, in no way, suggests the Chinese model is better as a value judgement. Just more economically efficient. And it really, really, really is efficient. 

I’ve spent some time in Shenzhen when they were first building it up. Hong Kong was still the place for international trade, and the movements back and forth were cumbersome (anyone remember the cardboard border pass?). It wasn’t until Shenzhen became a free trade zone that it really blew up. Twelve lane highways connecting Shenzhen to different ports, all full of container trucks. The explosion of port facilities in Dalian, Fujian, Xiamen, etc. I wouldn’t go so far as to say Hong Kong is a ghost town, but it’s not the international trade darling it once was.

As far as the working conditions, social benefits, etc for Chinese workers, that’s not something I can decide for them. I try not to take a relativistic viewpoint, but really, this is what the US did during our Industrial Revolution. Why should we dictate what their social and employment mores are, especially when we’re in our own social economic crisis. It’s working for them, and millions are being moved out of poverty and subsistence farming from the western areas (with plenty of hardships left to warrant their own constant protests). There are things they do incredibly correct, and things they do incredibly wrong.

The other problem is that China is a very labor-intensive society. They can be, because they have the population for this. The West, especially America, is very capital (machine) intensive economy. Even if American companies moved their jobs back to the US, the first thing they’d do is find a way to automate the system. It’s about leveraging your competitive advantage. China = massive workforce with low pay. America = mechanized workforce with minimal (but still expensive) labor force.

There’s a lot more to change between our systems than some simple bumper sticker taglines. The sooner people get hip to that, the sooner we can start coming to real, workable solutions.

Apple, America, and a Squeezed Middle Class: How U.S. lost out on iPhone work.

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Thoughts on the Keystone Pipeline, John Boehner’s responses on Twitter, and Bernie Sander’s response on Google+

Speaker Boehner has been all over Twitter today, saying Obama is destroying American jobs and shipping them overseas. Well, excuse me, but it’s the multinational energy corporations that are shipping jobs overseas. I’m sure Obama would prefer the jobs to stay here at home.

And Senator Sanders is correct, we need to help lead the world in generating green technologies and green energy. Yes, it’ll help with global warming, but at the same time it’s plain to see fossil-fuels are a dying breed. If we have to extract from tar sands and resort to fracking mountain sides, then clearly we’ve reached the point where costs are marginally rising. There’s no real escape from that unless there’s drastic change in technology.

So we either have to drastically change our technology to increase fossil-fuel extraction and refinement efficiency. Or, we have to drastically change our technology to make alternative, renewable fuels more cost efficient. Either way, it’s a question of cost efficiency.

Sure, there’s already infrastructure in place for fossil-fuel production, refinement, and distribution. But we already know these fuels are not-renewable and will eventually run out. At that point, all the infrastructure that we continued to fix and “update” becomes pointless. Roman aqueducts.

So much of the energy industry’s cost is in research, exploration, and development. Why not have a concerted effort by these already established corporations to really make a push to change their product mixture? Who else would be in a better position — money and intellectual capital — that the large energy corporations. They could be leading America (and the world) to a much better place employment wise, climate wise, and cost wise. 

If they choose.

Sanders Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline:

The United States must help lead the world in combating global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would be incomprehensible to give approval to a tar sands oil project when producing tar sands oil creates 82 percent more carbon emissions than conventional oil, and when it poses the risk of extremely damaging oil spills. I agree with NASA scientist James Hansen who has stated that fully exploiting the tar sands would mean ‘game over’ for our efforts to reverse global warming.

The Costs Remain the Same…

It seems energy production in the US (and around the world) is becoming more expensive. Secondary and tertiary processes are needed now to attempt to keep up with global demand for fossil-based fuels. And from what I’m seeing reported by the Economist and elsewhere, is that we’re consuming faster than production — which includes not only extraction, but transportation and refinement. The lack of refining capacity world-wide is one major factor why the US has become a net exporter of refined oil products. 

Yet, it doesn’t seem price really reflects all this. Sure, there’s the slight upward bumps in price during the summer when oil refinement production in the US switches from gasoline to heating oil. But where are the additional costs associated with fracking? With tar sands extraction? With litigation costs due to pollution? There are a ton of additional costs — because the act of extraction is becoming more expensive — that simply isn’t reflected in the price to consumers and industrialists. European prices seem more in line with actual costs.

So, when we finally square all the real costs associated with fossil-based fuels and create a realistic picture of the price, are we getting closer to price parity with different alternative fuels?

EPA Sees Risks to Water, Workers In New York Fracking Rules

New York’s emerging plan to regulate natural gas drilling in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale needs to go further to safeguard drinking water, environmentally sensitive areas and gas industry workers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has informed state officials.

RT @Oregonian: Oregon wins the 98th #RoseBowl, 45-38 over the Wisconsin Badgers. Ducks finish the season 12-2. #GoDucks #RBGPasadena

RT @SamGrittner: Let’s not forget to thank to the real heroes of 2011: The people who changed their avatar for a couple days for a thing …