Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by reactordev 18 days ago
One sounds incapable from a skill perspective, the other is incapable from a market perspective. I’ll take the later over the former any day.
4 comments

Agree. The problem is over extended lengths of time the people with the skills to make these things—or make tools that make them—will leave the workforce.

That's how this goes from being a market issue to a skill issue.

The later form was part of the design from the beginning: relying on imports for something this critical in times of an epidemic was a supply chain risk. It was never intended to compete in terms of pricing.

It baffles me that this wasn’t made more explicit? That seems to be the root cause of the failure.

Once the epidemic was over, stakeholders forgot about the original motives.
Good thing the country isn't run by shareholders.

Note that a federal jobs program has something like 60-80% support by voters across all political spectrums in the USA.

oh but it is... oh but it is.
Also, the stakeholders decided the epidemic was a hoax in the first place.
If the price is too high you aren’t skilled enough to make them cheaper
Or free enough. All that civil engineering, permitting, compliance checkbox BS has to be amortized over the stuff the factory makes.
Foreign made medical gloves have the same compliance to fulfill
They really, really don’t. I’m sympathetic to the goal of moving manufacturing stateside, but fixing regulatory hurdles needs to happen first.

Just because a foreign glove manufacturer has to comply with the same safety/quality standards for their product only scratches the surface. Domestic companies also have to operate compliant with regulations regarding hiring, real estate, safety, finance, and many more.

To be clear, a lot of those regulations (most of them!) achieve good things and should be preserved! Working/environmental/low-corruption conditions in the US (though they could be better) are often superior to those same conditions in the places we import from precisely because of those regulations. But not all regulations (even those with good goals) are effective, others are not worth the burden, and all of them in aggregate do directly contribute to domestic manufacturing loss. It’s a hard problem that others (e.g. Pahlka) have written about much more wisely than I can.

Regulations exist for a reason. Polluting industries like the plastics business would obviously prefer not to be burdened by them. I am not particularly sympathetic to their concerns.
Over time, the latter becomes the former.
Only for a time until the market conditions improve. Humans are incredibly talented and we have a knack for picking up skills.
I wish it were so. It's not.

For an object-level example, look at the difficulties the Russians had reconstituting their industrial base in the post-apocalyptic wasteland they found themselves after the 90s. It took them a decade to figure out how to restart production of the Tu-160M bomber, and they had all the original blueprints! Likewise, for a while, we forgot how to make this "FOGBANK" substance that's somehow important for nuclear weapons.

It's all too easy to forget how to do something if you stop doing it for a while.

And then you pick it back up. Yes, you will get rusty or need to train up but that’s better than lacking the technological capability.
The main thing is to ensure you can continue to produce the machine tools, electronic components, and precision equipment needed to service each major industry. And the domestic engineering talent to run them. This allows you to add capacity quickly if self-sufficiency is needed.

Oh, and you also need to secure stable supply chains.

(We may be in trouble here)