(Lake Hartwell Specific)
64 messages
Updated 5/31/2024 10:29:36 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,645 messages
Updated 5/30/2024 11:45:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,195 messages
Updated 5/31/2024 4:36:53 AM
(Lake Hartwell Specific)
3 messages
Updated 8/24/2016 3:16:17 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Serious Suff
|
|
Date:
|
9/2/2009 12:38:15 PM
|
-OK, polls, MSNBC, Morning Joe, --all interesting and fun, but the in alot of cases they are just distractions, --just entertainment.
-Below is a serius issue that indicates a much bigger problem, --The moving of American companies overseas. This has been going on a long time, mostly textiles and such, but now we're talking even more serious defections. What is government doing about it? How do we turn this arond? More government intervention? Lower business taxes? Tarriffs?
-Below is an article about Boeing thinking of moving to China. Yes! --that's what I said, Boeing moving to China. Alot of Boeing is already there. Sure, we all know the Auto industry is already overseas. Even if you look inside the GM-government bailout plan, more cars will bemade outside the country. That's right, we taxpayers paid $60 billion dollars for GM , another $17 billion (17% +/-) went to the union, --and what does the survival plan call for? --more cars made in Mexico!!!
-Now teh Boeing article below is important because it is around the 15th biggest manufacturing company in the US., ...and more importantly, it is the #1, --let me repeat, the #1 -- aerospace and defense company.
-Without US manufacturing base growth we will not get out of this recession, --with continued manufactuing reduction, teh recession will get worse.
-This is the stuff we should really be concerned abaut. THis is teh kind of stuff we should really be beating up our representatives about. Some projections call for teh US to be a third world work force in 25 years. I use to laugh at these reports. I don't anymore!
-here's the repot on Boeing:
-Will Boeing move to Beijing?
Peter Cohan
Aug 31st 2009 at 11:00AMText SizeAAAFiled under: Company News, Boeing
More
Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney is eager to move the company to China. Whether moving Boeing to China means shifting its headquarters from Chicago to Beijing is up in the air. But Boeing already has $600 million in supplier partnerships with China -- such as a deal with Shenyang Aircraft Corporation to build an assembly for the 787's vertical fin. And Stan Sorscher, who spent 20 years at Boeing before taking a post at the Society of Professional Engineers in Aerospace (SPEEA) in 2000, told me that McNerney is hooked on the idea of shifting Boeing to China.
Sorscher told me that McNerney recently hosted a meeting with a group of engineers to discuss how Boeing should build its next aircraft. The conclusion of the meeting was that McNerney is comfortable with the way the 787 was developed but thinks it could use a bit of tweaking -- and he'd like to shift more of the design and manufacturing of future Boeing aircraft to China.
This would leave Boeing as a systems integrator which outsources product development to China and other countries. According to Sorscher, the engineers were very nervous in their presentation -- perhaps fearing that they would be punished for bringing McNerney the bad news that they believed Boeing should never repeat what it has done in the design and manufacturing of the 787. The engineers reportedly believe that in the future Boeing should take far greater authority and responsibility for aircraft design.
During the meeting, the engineers thought that McNerney was relaxed and that he agreed with them. Sorscher said that the engineers even told him that McNerney was talking through their slides for them. But months later, the engineers realized that McNerney was just seeing what he wanted to see in their presentation.
According to Sorscher, McNerney wants to partner with China rather than compete. He likes the idea of outsourcing the design and manufacturing of future aircraft there and -- with some minor tweaks -- is comfortable with shifting future aircraft design and manufacturing work to suppliers as Boeing did with the 787.
Who's right, McNerney or the Boeing engineers? McNerney might argue that outsourcing limits Boeing's financial risk, gives it access to more global talent while cutting its labor costs. Sorscher is suggesting that McNerney's approach threatens Boeing's engineers by giving them less to do. But if Sorscher is right, Boeing needs to return to the problem-solving approach that worked for the company in 1995 with its successful 777 program.
I'd argue that if Boeing can quickly overcome the problems with the 787 that have been publicized in places like the Wall Street Journal -- such as structural problems where the wing and the fuselage join and fuselage wrinkling -- along with problems that have yet to be formally acknowledged -- such as failures in the 787's Environmental Control System (ECS) and Electrical System (ES) -- then McNerney will be proven right.
But at this point, it appears that McNerney may be suffering from confirmation bias -- an approach to processing information that stifles inconvenient truths while embracing news that paints the picture that the decision-maker wants to see.
And for the 787 -- which has 850 orders and a $154 billion backlog -- this style of decision-making could be costly.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Good Article ... Bad News
|
|
Date:
|
9/2/2009 1:55:07 PM
|
I had read a blurb that mentioned Boeing's possible China move, but the report was not as detailed as this one. I also learned a new phrase:
"confirmation bias -- an approach to processing information that stifles inconvenient truths while embracing news that paints the picture that the decision-maker wants to see."
I have seen this condition many times but never knew what to call it. I suppose some of you probably think I have been guilty of it myself :)
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Serious Suff
|
|
Date:
|
9/2/2009 4:28:38 PM
|
I know I am guilty of confirmation bias at times. I think we all do and that's why you have to really understand your audience when making a presentation. In our business my partner and I call this the "Law of Unintended Consequences". We try very hard to imagine what they all could be and then am not really surprised when we learn we missed quite a few that the more ingenious minds come up with.
Now onto my confirmation bias about this story. We really need to examine the reasons that we are losing manufacturing jobs in the U.S. because it has such far-reaching long term impact on our standard of living. The liberal template is evil, greedy corporations are just looking for cheap labor and less regulations. While that is most certainly part of the answer, I would maintain that it makes them neither evil, nor greedy. We want our corporations to run as efficiently as possible and the profit motive is one of the greatest motivators in driving innovation and production, something that benefits us all.
I think America needs to decide where it wants to be vis-a-vis its manufacturing base. We can wish it weren't true, but globalization is here and we can't pretend that its not. Consequently, American businesses have to respond to the various cost issues that impact them with domestic production versus going off shore. Put simply, consumers are not generally willing to pay a lot more for a product simply to keep jobs in the U.S. If they were, we would still have a textile industry that for the most part is totally gone. And if we allow ourselves to get to the point where government tries to tell us that we must be willing to pay more, or that businesses must be willing to lower prices or whatever, we are doomed. We had price controls with Nixon and saw how that worked out. We had Smoot-Hawley and other trade protection schemes and saw what a disaster that was when other governments retaliated.
We also have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed and undeveloped world. Other than the EU (which has also lost a lot of manufacturing) we have some of the highest regulatory burdens (permitting, labor, environmental, safety, etc.). I am not saying these are wrong for us to have these regulations but we have to accept the unintended consequences....manufacturing jobs moving overseas. We also have a government that at times is downright hostile to business and need to recognize that there are governments in the world that are not as hostile.
I guess my main point is that our collective actions have consequences and it is no wonder that we are losing manufacturing jobs or even that manufacturing jobs move to states that are more amenable to business.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Serious Suff
|
|
Date:
|
9/2/2009 7:28:27 PM
|
If you were in conttol of a major corporation, or even a minor business, name one reason why you would want to stay in the US today. These idiots have got to go.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Georgia Lakes
»
Lake Hartwell
Login
|
Home
