As somebody else noted: it doesn't have to be the company that does it, but a lower level employee who cuts a deal. So paying the company more wouldn't solve the issue completely.

All of these things are extremely cost sensitive. Your suggestion that people don't consider using economics is simply wrong. If you can manufacture a million pieces for a few cent less per piece, and the only negative is having to paying a bunch of inspectors who are fixed cost, it's an easy choice.

And again, you should make it the company's problem if they can't control their own employees. They can learn to put some controls in place once it starts hurting their bottom line.

> All of these things are extremely cost sensitive.

Say their profit margin is 1%. If you offer to pay them a 1% higher price, you're offering to nearly double their profits on whatever they sell to you.

Admittedly, that only works if you are a sufficiently large portion of their business. If you're a tiny percentage, then it may take a lot more to motivate them if their other customers aren't willing to pay more.

If the solution to the problem involves line checks, independent audits, personnel checks, increased pay, etc., thenyes, throwing money at the problem is a large part of the solution.

You have to pay them as much as it would cost to manufacture in the Western country doing the out-sourcing...so unless the cost of these extra quality checks outweighs the cost of on-shoring you might as well measure angular momentum.

Madness if you ask me but there we are.