Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of U.S. companies

Re:Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of... by twblalock on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:42PM (#22552004)

If local wages rise, wouldn't that include the wages of the people who work at the local cotton producers, textile workers, and clothing retailers? Thereby making the manufactured goods more expensive, rather than less?

If we could have cheap manufactured goods and also pay living wages to the workers who produce them, we would not have outsourced.

You can produce cheap goods with cheap labor (or robots), or expensive goods with expensive labor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Coronavirus has disrupted supply chains for nearly 75% of... by triceratops on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @10:04PM (#22552860)

I think there will be an equilibrium. Again refer to the argument in my previous post: production used to be 100% local and everyone could afford clothes. Not as many as now, but enough. The only thing that's changed is we now have more automation, so domestic production should be even more efficient than before.

Maybe sweaters will be $200 and wages will rise enough to be able to afford one every year. But we won't have $3 sweaters on Alibaba. From an environmental perspective, having more clothes than we need at dirt-cheap prices isn't all that great.

Some people may call this a reduced standard of living, and they are right from a reductive viewpoint where less stuff = lower standards. But isn't there more to quality of life than filling your closets with cheap shit you don't really need?

[ Parent | on HN ]