http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/ China | Business | Economy | Internet | Technology Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:15:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/comment-page-1/#comment-8601 NYT Reminds Us Westerners Not Much Better Than Chinese Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:31:06 +0000 http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/#comment-8601 [...] xing” drink milk instead of melamine or that people around the rest of the world play with toys instead of lead, or brush with toothpaste instead of [...] [...] xing” drink milk instead of melamine or that people around the rest of the world play with toys instead of lead, or brush with toothpaste instead of [...]

]]> http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/comment-page-1/#comment-90 voyeurweb.com Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:41:51 +0000 http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/#comment-90 good blog good blog

]]> http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/comment-page-1/#comment-13 admin Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:12:44 +0000 http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/#comment-13 Todd--There are other costs involved in litigation, many of which cannot be quantified in monetary terms and damages. Many CEOs fear the PR repercussions of bad publicity. Up until very recently, there were no damages in setting up in China and other countries with comparatively cheap labor. More than anything else, there is constant pressure from company boards, especially public companies, to relentlessly lower costs by outsourcing manufacturing, and cutting back on US labor. If you are politically conservative, most would say that US labor is over-regulated, adding to costs for management. If you are politically liberal, you would argue that these regulations are there to protect the rights of labor, and would resist any efforts to rollback these regulations. US importers first outsourced manufacturing to China because of lower costs, but more and more, they are in China because of the market's potential. Any way you look at it, the US consumer market is less important to global companies, and this downward trend will continue into the future. The Chinese consumer market is increasingly more important, and soon, the Indian consumer market will also become important. (For certain sectors, such as mobile phones, it is already the most important single market.) Long story short: the US consumer market is on a downward trend, and the US standard of living will have to adjust downward to adjust to this reality. The Bush administration, and all the US candidates for the presidency in 2008, are aware of this, which is why they support the devaluation of the US dollar. It's just that most Americans don't understand that a dollar devaluation inevitably translates into a fall of the US standard of living if it continues on a long-term basis. Todd–There are other costs involved in litigation, many of which cannot be quantified in monetary terms and damages. Many CEOs fear the PR repercussions of bad publicity. Up until very recently, there were no damages in setting up in China and other countries with comparatively cheap labor.
More than anything else, there is constant pressure from company boards, especially public companies, to relentlessly lower costs by outsourcing manufacturing, and cutting back on US labor. If you are politically conservative, most would say that US labor is over-regulated, adding to costs for management. If you are politically liberal, you would argue that these regulations are there to protect the rights of labor, and would resist any efforts to rollback these regulations.
US importers first outsourced manufacturing to China because of lower costs, but more and more, they are in China because of the market’s potential. Any way you look at it, the US consumer market is less important to global companies, and this downward trend will continue into the future. The Chinese consumer market is increasingly more important, and soon, the Indian consumer market will also become important. (For certain sectors, such as mobile phones, it is already the most important single market.) Long story short: the US consumer market is on a downward trend, and the US standard of living will have to adjust downward to adjust to this reality. The Bush administration, and all the US candidates for the presidency in 2008, are aware of this, which is why they support the devaluation of the US dollar. It’s just that most Americans don’t understand that a dollar devaluation inevitably translates into a fall of the US standard of living if it continues on a long-term basis.

]]> http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Law Office of Todd L. Platek Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:56:48 +0000 http://www.chinavortex.com/2007/08/mattel-recall-highlights-quality-fade-and-hidden-costs-of-outsourcing/#comment-10 Paul, I find it hard to believe that a manufacturer in the US would leave manufacturing because of potentially high product liability judgments. Such entities generally have product liability insurance, and can also find codefendants with whom to share/spread the liability. Even if such entities manufacture offshore, they still bear legal liability within the chain of distribution, and cannot escape such burden. Comparative cost factors of greater and more frequent importance to operations are apt to be the reason for moving offshore. I would venture to say that if litigation bore such high correspondence to our current economic situation, then, by analogy, our medical profession would have moved offshore also. That hasn't happened to date. Paul, I find it hard to believe that a manufacturer in the US would leave manufacturing because of potentially high product liability judgments. Such entities generally have product liability insurance, and can also find codefendants with whom to share/spread the liability. Even if such entities manufacture offshore, they still bear legal liability within the chain of distribution, and cannot escape such burden. Comparative cost factors of greater and more frequent importance to operations are apt to be the reason for moving offshore. I would venture to say that if litigation bore such high correspondence to our current economic situation, then, by analogy, our medical profession would have moved offshore also. That hasn’t happened to date.

]]>