Let's imagine you go to the supermarket to get a 6 pack of beer. But this supermarket is very unusual. It has no shelves. Instead, the moment you walk in, a guy from the Bud light bottling plant also comes in with the 6 pack of beer you want. You grab it from him, pay for it, and you're on your way.
There are many problems with this:
The store can't know precisely when you're going to be going to the store or what you're going to buy
Having each delivery driver bring in just one item of merchandise would be very expensive
If the driver gets a flat tire, then you're out of luck
So instead, the store has less frequent deliveries of very large shipments that provide a buffer for changes in supply and demand. This causes its own problems:
This inventory is not making you any money, but you have to pay for rent, heating, cooling, and for protecting your merchandise from theft, damage, and spoilage.
But let's imagine that this supermarket got a teleportation device. You'd tell the clerk that you wanted a six pack of beer and they would beam one straight from the bottling plant. They'd get the advantages of having no inventory without the drawbacks.
That's an extreme scenario but it holds true in the real world. With faster and more reliable transportation, retailers can hold less inventory for a given number of sales, lowering their costs. As we're seeing with the fiasco at our nation's ports, when transportation is unreliable, it means shortages, because effectively stores now need to hold larger inventories as a buffer.
We probably won't ever get teleportation devices, but we can strengthen our supply chains by improving our transportation infrastructure, saving us the tremendous costs associated with holding inventory.
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Ask Brundle Fly how the Telepod concept worked out.
Also, you do realize that most stores get beverages from a local distributor and it isn't shipped in bulk freight? Usually our drink vendors show up 2-3 times a week to replenish stock on hand.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 11, 2021, 11:33:05 PM
Ask Brundle Fly how the Telepod concept worked out.
Also, you do realize that most stores get beverages from a local distributor and it isn't shipped in bulk freight? Usually our drink vendors show up 2-3 times a week to replenish stock on hand.
Way to miss the point dude
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 11:19:19 PM
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Better infrastructure means better productivity which means fewer employees are needed.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 11:19:19 PM
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Better infrastructure means better productivity which means fewer employees are needed.
Yes, because the truckloads per driver just get bigger naturally as infrastructure improves.
(or, to put it more bluntly: What?)
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 08:18:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 11, 2021, 11:33:05 PM
Ask Brundle Fly how the Telepod concept worked out.
Also, you do realize that most stores get beverages from a local distributor and it isn't shipped in bulk freight? Usually our drink vendors show up 2-3 times a week to replenish stock on hand.
Way to miss the point dude
Actually no I didn't miss the point. I've managed retail security for as close to the length of your life (which includes supply chain problems and theft). You are talking about teleportation devices and citing some sort of vague infrastructure issue which largely doesn't exist. The issue you see at the Port of Long Beach has nothing to do with highway infrastructure and development. There are plenty of long haul and short haul trucks that will take any freight off loaded from those container ships. The trouble is the port is short staffed which has nothing to do with highways. Truth be told, we aren't even expecting much of a product shortage from our distribution center in Orange County. We are actually planning taking rain checks for any major product shortages as we have done in years past if there is a Black Friday weekend supply issue. No need to reinvent the wheel here.
It just hit me, you don't work for the Union Aerospace Corporation do you? :-o
Quote from: Rothman on November 12, 2021, 08:29:58 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 11:19:19 PM
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Better infrastructure means better productivity which means fewer employees are needed.
Yes, because the truckloads per driver just get bigger naturally as infrastructure improves.
(or, to put it more bluntly: What?)
The truckloads don't get bigger, but each driver can make more deliveries in a given amount of time
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 11:19:19 PM
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Better infrastructure means better productivity which means fewer employees are needed.
Better infrastructure won't magically make more dockworkers and truck drivers appear. The backlogs in the supply chain are all occurring well before a loaded truck is on the highway. If anything, our current infrastructure is being underutilized because of the supply chain issues.
A few thoughts.
First, I will agree that reliable freight (and passenger) transportation is desirable. Unfortunately the approach used to determine what is sufficient is generally ill conceived as no significant considerations are made for redundancy or resistance to disruption. Freight capacity is an important strategic consideration from a civil defense standpoint, and the system should be as resilient to disruption, attack, or failure as possible.
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 12, 2021, 08:29:58 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 11:19:19 PM
The current issue is dealing with employee shortages. The infrastructure itself is fine.
Better infrastructure means better productivity which means fewer employees are needed.
Yes, because the truckloads per driver just get bigger naturally as infrastructure improves.
(or, to put it more bluntly: What?)
The truckloads don't get bigger, but each driver can make more deliveries in a given amount of time
Because the distance between origin and destination becomes shorter... :D
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
In this hypothetical world with teleporters, why would people still go to stores and the like? Why wouldn't Amazon just give everyone with Prime a teleporter, and then one second shipping would eliminate the need to go anywhere? Why have the middleman when all you need is the warehouse and the teleporter? I'm imagining warehouse companies teleporting goods in from factories and then out to customers, with lots of jobs lost due to being obsolete.
Granted, there's still the experience of going to the store, browsing the selection, and finding what you want... but that's not what was depicted in the OP.
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
Even in Pre-COVID times, our infrastructure was causing problems. Congestion at the port of LA/LB was causing hell for supply chains.
Quote from: vdeane on November 12, 2021, 02:36:51 PM
In this hypothetical world with teleporters, why would people still go to stores and the like? Why wouldn't Amazon just give everyone with Prime a teleporter, and then one second shipping would eliminate the need to go anywhere? Why have the middleman when all you need is the warehouse and the teleporter? I'm imagining warehouse companies teleporting goods in from factories and then out to customers, with lots of jobs lost due to being obsolete.
Granted, there's still the experience of going to the store, browsing the selection, and finding what you want... but that's not what was depicted in the OP.
Some jobs are lost, many are gained. Like with almost every technological improvement.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
Even in Pre-COVID times, our infrastructure was causing problems. Congestion at the port of LA/LB was causing hell for supply chains.
Just in time creates more risk than it reduces.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
Even in Pre-COVID times, our infrastructure was causing problems. Congestion at the port of LA/LB was causing hell for supply chains.
I mean it is a port, I don't know what grand designs you think are going to happen there. Perhaps I'm missing how the misfortunes of the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles have anything to do with general highway infrastructure in the area? Are you saying that there isn't sufficient highway infrastructure to the ports in question and they are somehow contributing to ships not being offloaded?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 12, 2021, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
Even in Pre-COVID times, our infrastructure was causing problems. Congestion at the port of LA/LB was causing hell for supply chains.
I mean it is a port, I don't know what grand designs you think are going to happen there. Perhaps I'm missing how the misfortunes of the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles have anything to do with general highway infrastructure in the area? Are you saying that there isn't sufficient highway infrastructure to the ports in question and they are somehow contributing to ships not being offloaded?
Its interesting how ports/wharves on the east coast are in many cases semi-abandoned, yet these are overflowing with problems in SoCal. Its a sign of trade imbalance.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:56:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 12, 2021, 04:54:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
Even in Pre-COVID times, our infrastructure was causing problems. Congestion at the port of LA/LB was causing hell for supply chains.
I mean it is a port, I don't know what grand designs you think are going to happen there. Perhaps I'm missing how the misfortunes of the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles have anything to do with general highway infrastructure in the area? Are you saying that there isn't sufficient highway infrastructure to the ports in question and they are somehow contributing to ships not being offloaded?
Its interesting how ports/wharves on the east coast are in many cases semi-abandoned, yet these are overflowing with problems in SoCal. Its a sign of trade imbalance.
And to that end I could see the merit in increasing the number of major ports. I would be curious to see the difference in freight volume at the Bay Area Ports along with the Port of Seattle compared to Long Beach/Los Angeles.
AIUI, our supply chain woes result largely from an imbalance between demand for goods and demand for services that has resulted from the covid pandemic pushing consumers to reallocate their spending from one to the other.
It's easy to design a supply chain for an unvarying demand pattern, whether you use teleportation or twenty-mule teams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-mule_team). Dealing with change, especially abrupt change, is where all the problems come in.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
As a 9-year business owner...any business model that might result in me having to let a customer down because of the fuck-up of someone outside of my command structure is shit. I don't sell anything I don't have possession of already. I would much rather carry the risk of product damage or shrink–which I can write off or claim against insurance and then replace–than carry a risk to my business's reputation by promising something I can't deliver, which can't be written off or easily fixed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
As a 9-year business owner...any business model that might result in me having to let a customer down because of the fuck-up of someone outside of my command structure is shit. I don't sell anything I don't have possession of already. I would much rather carry the risk of product damage or shrink–which I can write off or claim against insurance and then replace–than carry a risk to my business's reputation by promising something I can't deliver, which can't be written off or easily fixed.
While I am inclined to agree with this, I think we need to make a distinction here.
Large businesses and small businesses have different models here. For a small business the cost of inventory is a cost, but one that can be more easily justified. For a large corporation that cost gets hard to justify.
Also, a small business not selling a product is the business's problem. A large business not selling a product becomes the customer's problem.
Like the old saying, if you owe the bank 10k dollars, that is your problem. If you owe the bank 10B dollars, that is the bank's problem.
Its understandable why large businesses have gone to this model, because all the risk is tail risk and that is a problem for some other quarter. The issue is more in crafting policies to manage that incentive the other direction.
Individual trucks going from the same port to the same bank of warehouses is so inefficient. It's finally catching up to us with the recent labor crisis (born of people finally being able to stand up to awful conditions and pay), but it was definitely coming.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
As a 9-year business owner...any business model that might result in me having to let a customer down because of the fuck-up of someone outside of my command structure is shit. I don't sell anything I don't have possession of already. I would much rather carry the risk of product damage or shrink–which I can write off or claim against insurance and then replace–than carry a risk to my business's reputation by promising something I can't deliver, which can't be written off or easily fixed.
That's what I'm saying, with improved infrastructure, you would be able to keep smaller inventories without the risk of disappointing customers.
As it is, we already are trending this direction. If you were running the same business half a century ago, before computerized inventory management and before the deregulation of trucking and railroads, you'd have had to keep a larger inventory for a given number of sales.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 07:40:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
As a 9-year business owner...any business model that might result in me having to let a customer down because of the fuck-up of someone outside of my command structure is shit. I don't sell anything I don't have possession of already. I would much rather carry the risk of product damage or shrink–which I can write off or claim against insurance and then replace–than carry a risk to my business's reputation by promising something I can't deliver, which can't be written off or easily fixed.
That's what I'm saying, with improved infrastructure, you would be able to keep smaller inventories without the risk of disappointing customers.
No, I wouldn't. Upstream fuckups tend to be something like "supplier sent the wrong item" or "supplier did not make product to specifications" or "supplier prioritized someone else's order before ours" more often than they are logistics issues. I can have a 14,252-lane freeway between the supplier and me and it does me no good if I ordered a pallet of plastic and they sent me paper instead.
If I'm running a business with inventory in hand, I can just put the "sold out" marker on the affected item and while it sucks for anyone that wanted to buy that, it doesn't create any expectation or responsibility for me to fulfill an order I can't fulfill. If I'm running just-in-time, then I have to go back to the customer and say "hey, I know you gave me your money two weeks ago for an order you needed fulfilled a week ago, but our supplier is a dipshit and..." Customers don't care about my supply-chain issues, so all they hear is me deflecting blame and it makes them less likely to trust my company in the future.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 06:57:13 PM
While I am inclined to agree with this, I think we need to make a distinction here.
Large businesses and small businesses have different models here. For a small business the cost of inventory is a cost, but one that can be more easily justified. For a large corporation that cost gets hard to justify.
Also, a small business not selling a product is the business's problem. A large business not selling a product becomes the customer's problem.
Like the old saying, if you owe the bank 10k dollars, that is your problem. If you owe the bank 10B dollars, that is the bank's problem.
Its understandable why large businesses have gone to this model, because all the risk is tail risk and that is a problem for some other quarter. The issue is more in crafting policies to manage that incentive the other direction.
Yes and no...large businesses do still need to sell products eventually. While Amazon and Walmart aren't going to suffer much long-term harm from a certain item being unavailable, if a customer experiences outages too often, they may stop viewing those companies as a reliable option and start doing business elsewhere. There's a certain value in your company being the first solution the customer thinks of to solve their problem.
Sort of like Whataburger. It's a good fast-food burger and they sell them like crazy here in Norman...but the service is so slow it takes thirty minutes to get one. I used to eat them all the time, and I'd like to do so again, but I finally reached the point at which I realized it's not a good enough burger to wait that long for, so I stopped going there. Now, I'm just one guy, so they can withstand the loss of my business, but if enough people reach that same conclusion, then they have a problem.
You're right that current business culture encourages just saying "that's next quarter's problem" and sweeping it under the rug, but I have never felt like that is a responsible way of running a business. As a country, we need to come up with a way of curbing that way of thinking, because it is the root cause of a lot of ills in our society.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 08:40:17 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 07:40:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 12, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the particulars of the analogy and are missing his point, which is that just-in-time supply chains are shit. He posits that they can be made less shit by improving infrastructure, which I feel like is true, but it's also true that infrastructure isn't the current limiting factor.
Just in time supply chains aren't shit, they're wonderful. They save money and reduce risk.
As a 9-year business owner...any business model that might result in me having to let a customer down because of the fuck-up of someone outside of my command structure is shit. I don't sell anything I don't have possession of already. I would much rather carry the risk of product damage or shrink–which I can write off or claim against insurance and then replace–than carry a risk to my business's reputation by promising something I can't deliver, which can't be written off or easily fixed.
That's what I'm saying, with improved infrastructure, you would be able to keep smaller inventories without the risk of disappointing customers.
No, I wouldn't. Upstream fuckups tend to be something like "supplier sent the wrong item" or "supplier did not make product to specifications" or "supplier prioritized someone else's order before ours" more often than they are logistics issues. I can have a 14,252-lane freeway between the supplier and me and it does me no good if I ordered a pallet of plastic and they sent me paper instead.
If I'm running a business with inventory in hand, I can just put the "sold out" marker on the affected item and while it sucks for anyone that wanted to buy that, it doesn't create any expectation or responsibility for me to fulfill an order I can't fulfill. If I'm running just-in-time, then I have to go back to the customer and say "hey, I know you gave me your money two weeks ago for an order you needed fulfilled a week ago, but our supplier is a dipshit and..." Customers don't care about my supply-chain issues, so all they hear is me deflecting blame and it makes them less likely to trust my company in the future.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 06:57:13 PM
While I am inclined to agree with this, I think we need to make a distinction here.
Large businesses and small businesses have different models here. For a small business the cost of inventory is a cost, but one that can be more easily justified. For a large corporation that cost gets hard to justify.
Also, a small business not selling a product is the business's problem. A large business not selling a product becomes the customer's problem.
Like the old saying, if you owe the bank 10k dollars, that is your problem. If you owe the bank 10B dollars, that is the bank's problem.
Its understandable why large businesses have gone to this model, because all the risk is tail risk and that is a problem for some other quarter. The issue is more in crafting policies to manage that incentive the other direction.
Yes and no...large businesses do still need to sell products eventually. While Amazon and Walmart aren't going to suffer much long-term harm from a certain item being unavailable, if a customer experiences outages too often, they may stop viewing those companies as a reliable option and start doing business elsewhere. There's a certain value in your company being the first solution the customer thinks of to solve their problem.
Sort of like Whataburger. It's a good fast-food burger and they sell them like crazy here in Norman...but the service is so slow it takes thirty minutes to get one. I used to eat them all the time, and I'd like to do so again, but I finally reached the point at which I realized it's not a good enough burger to wait that long for, so I stopped going there. Now, I'm just one guy, so they can withstand the loss of my business, but if enough people reach that same conclusion, then they have a problem.
You're right that current business culture encourages just saying "that's next quarter's problem" and sweeping it under the rug, but I have never felt like that is a responsible way of running a business. As a country, we need to come up with a way of curbing that way of thinking, because it is the root cause of a lot of ills in our society.
Retail businesses are not the entire story. If you don't want to buy from TSMC you have few to no options, and the few that you have are likely to be in lockstep with TSMC anyway as far as supplies go.
So to take the example of graphics cards, sure, neither Walmart nor Amazon has them, but you have no alternatives anyway since Best Buy, Micro-Center, and Staples also have none. No one prepared for this kind of event, and none of them are going to suffer any consequences for it either. If they can't buy them wholesale, then the customers just won't get them retail either.
Well, yes...but eventually that will become a problem for the graphics card manufacturers, as unmet demand encourages competitors to spring up to fill that demand, meaning reduced market share.
Just in time shipping does suck. Highly optimized also means highly susceptible to problems whenever something disruptive happens. We saw that just last year - and the world is only moving in the trend to more disruption, not less. If it hadn't been COVID, it would have eventually been something else - and likely still will. A supply chain with more redundancy would have been far more resilient.
And yeah, highway capacity has pretty much nothing to do with our current product shortages, as people have mentioned.
The latest article I could find regarding the amount of computing power and energy likely necessary for teleportation:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/12/teleportation-will-it-ever-be-a-possibility
Maybe the UAC was onto something using Argent Energy (AKA human souls) to power their slip gates?
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
Prices wouldn't need to be so low if it were still possible to support a middle-class family on a single income like it was in the 1950s, however. I'd rather than higher prices but better quality of life than lower prices with shit wages in a shit job. Evidently I'm not alone, given the current labor shortage.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 08:58:28 PMWell, yes...but eventually that will become a problem for the graphics card manufacturers, as unmet demand encourages competitors to spring up to fill that demand, meaning reduced market share.
While economic theory says that, in general, high prices translate into entry opportunities for new firms in sectors where returns to scale are not so high as to accord incumbents a natural monopoly, what is going on with graphics cards is actually market failure due to bots. It doesn't matter how many competitors Nvidia and AMD have if bots are going to snap up all graphics cards for bitcoin mining before human customers have a chance to get at them through retail channels.
I think there is a crying need to regulate bots not just for graphics cards, but also for sneakers, concert tickets, and pretty much every other line of business where they are manipulating prices by artificially constraining supply.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
That is just the cool aid you are supposed to be drinking.
It has not caused goods to be made "more efficiently" virtually all efficiency gains were technological, not trade related. Prices for most goods and services are not lower in real terms, that is obvious from the fact that most families have 2 working adults to even attempt a middle class lifestyle, while almost all with one working parent are effectively below the poverty line.
Society as a whole is much worse off, not least of which because our deficit in national accounts right now means that even our current standard of living is not sustainable.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 14, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2021, 08:58:28 PMWell, yes...but eventually that will become a problem for the graphics card manufacturers, as unmet demand encourages competitors to spring up to fill that demand, meaning reduced market share.
While economic theory says that, in general, high prices translate into entry opportunities for new firms in sectors where returns to scale are not so high as to accord incumbents a natural monopoly, what is going on with graphics cards is actually market failure due to bots. It doesn't matter how many competitors Nvidia and AMD have if bots are going to snap up all graphics cards for bitcoin mining before human customers have a chance to get at them through retail channels.
I think there is a crying need to regulate bots not just for graphics cards, but also for sneakers, concert tickets, and pretty much every other line of business where they are manipulating prices by artificially constraining supply.
No, "bots" have not caused any failure whatsoever. There is no "market failure", it is simply that many sellers continue to sell their goods below market price, resulting in limited stock. If all sellers raised prices to market clearing price then the rationing would take place exclusively via the price mechanism.
And more production is entering as expected, Intel is getting into the business and several companies are building more fabs, but there is of course a time delay in that, so short run supply curves don't shift, meaning that equilibrium price is still high.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 14, 2021, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
That is just the cool aid you are supposed to be drinking.
It has not caused goods to be made "more efficiently" virtually all efficiency gains were technological, not trade related. Prices for most goods and services are not lower in real terms, that is obvious from the fact that most families have 2 working adults to even attempt a middle class lifestyle, while almost all with one working parent are effectively below the poverty line.
Society as a whole is much worse off, not least of which because our deficit in national accounts right now means that even our current standard of living is not sustainable.
Cool. No evidence presented whatsoever, but cool.
Median household income has increased since 1960 - largely in a free trade era where we made the transition from a manufacturing to service based economy.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2015/09/23/median-household-income-growth-deflating-the-american-dream
Income and wealth differentiation in the US is more due to terrible tax and social policy IMO.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 14, 2021, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
That is just the cool aid you are supposed to be drinking.
It has not caused goods to be made "more efficiently" virtually all efficiency gains were technological, not trade related. Prices for most goods and services are not lower in real terms, that is obvious from the fact that most families have 2 working adults to even attempt a middle class lifestyle, while almost all with one working parent are effectively below the poverty line.
Society as a whole is much worse off, not least of which because our deficit in national accounts right now means that even our current standard of living is not sustainable.
Cool. No evidence presented whatsoever, but cool.
Median household income has increased since 1960 - largely in a free trade era where we made the transition from a manufacturing to service based economy.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2015/09/23/median-household-income-growth-deflating-the-american-dream
Income and wealth differentiation in the US is more due to terrible tax and social policy IMO.
Those "median" household income numbers don't mean that much. The dollar has had nothing remotely close to constant value over time, so both wages and purchasing power have to be adjusted. That is not an easy task, and the methods used clearly don't capture what is going on.
Citing misleading evidence when you don't understand the issue is worse that just giving good analysis.
And the point still stands. At that time one earner households were more comfortably middle class than most two earner households today. I don't care how you try and cook the damn numbers, you can't get past the fact that real wages have clearly fallen for the vast majority of the country.
As to the impact of distribution, sure, there is some of that in there as well. But most of that came from trade policy as well. Tax policy did not do that, taxes are much lower today than they were then and we are still worse off. Social policy was bad too, but again it would never have produced these results without trade, de-industrialization, and the death of the middle class.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 15, 2021, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 14, 2021, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
That is just the cool aid you are supposed to be drinking.
It has not caused goods to be made "more efficiently" virtually all efficiency gains were technological, not trade related. Prices for most goods and services are not lower in real terms, that is obvious from the fact that most families have 2 working adults to even attempt a middle class lifestyle, while almost all with one working parent are effectively below the poverty line.
Society as a whole is much worse off, not least of which because our deficit in national accounts right now means that even our current standard of living is not sustainable.
Cool. No evidence presented whatsoever, but cool.
Median household income has increased since 1960 - largely in a free trade era where we made the transition from a manufacturing to service based economy.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2015/09/23/median-household-income-growth-deflating-the-american-dream
Income and wealth differentiation in the US is more due to terrible tax and social policy IMO.
Those "median" household income numbers don't mean that much. The dollar has had nothing remotely close to constant value over time, so both wages and purchasing power have to be adjusted. That is not an easy task, and the methods used clearly don't capture what is going on.
Citing misleading evidence when you don't understand the issue is worse that just giving good analysis.
And the point still stands. At that time one earner households were more comfortably middle class than most two earner households today. I don't care how you try and cook the damn numbers, you can't get past the fact that real wages have clearly fallen for the vast majority of the country.
As to the impact of distribution, sure, there is some of that in there as well. But most of that came from trade policy as well. Tax policy did not do that, taxes are much lower today than they were then and we are still worse off. Social policy was bad too, but again it would never have produced these results without trade, de-industrialization, and the death of the middle class.
It is not about just real wages, it is about real productivity. US GDP per-capita was $65k in 2019, and I suspect real numbers were closer to 50-50. After taking into account government spending for non-tangible government spending like schools, roads and military; and considering 62% workforce participation, $55k ($27/hour) should be an above-average number. Sounds like a lot of cities warrant way higher.
And even then, US trade deficit (aka consumption not supported by productivity) was $2K/year per capita, and on the way to go over $3k in 2021.
Quote from: kalvado on November 15, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 15, 2021, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 15, 2021, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 14, 2021, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 13, 2021, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on November 12, 2021, 02:16:32 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 12, 2021, 11:03:05 AM
Second, the current crisis in shipping is really not about either infrastructure or labor issues, so much as trade issues. In short, we buy far too much from Asia, to the point where we can't get it off the boats fast enough, that is a sign of trouble. If those goods were being produced in the US we would not be seeing anything like this kind of problem.
But we have been buying a lot of stuff from Asia for a long time now, and this was never a problem.
Building it here isn't a solution either. It would make everything more expensive, and global free trade has been largely good for the United States.
It was always a problem, because it creates a sensitive failure point.
Its like eating nothing but red meat and ice cream and then telling your cardiologist "this was never a problem before now", sure you never had a heart attack up to this point, but you were creating conditions for one to occur.
Building it here is a solution, and this "it makes everything more expensive" line is such utter BS. Global free trade has not been "largely good" for the US, it has been largely good for a very small elite at the top and bad for everyone else. And that is without considering it from a strategic standpoint.
It's been great for more than just "the elites." It has caused goods to be made more efficiently and lowered prices for everyone. Which is a good thing!
Obviously it hasn't been good for every single person no doubt. But society overall? Definitely.
That is just the cool aid you are supposed to be drinking.
It has not caused goods to be made "more efficiently" virtually all efficiency gains were technological, not trade related. Prices for most goods and services are not lower in real terms, that is obvious from the fact that most families have 2 working adults to even attempt a middle class lifestyle, while almost all with one working parent are effectively below the poverty line.
Society as a whole is much worse off, not least of which because our deficit in national accounts right now means that even our current standard of living is not sustainable.
Cool. No evidence presented whatsoever, but cool.
Median household income has increased since 1960 - largely in a free trade era where we made the transition from a manufacturing to service based economy.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2015/09/23/median-household-income-growth-deflating-the-american-dream
Income and wealth differentiation in the US is more due to terrible tax and social policy IMO.
Those "median" household income numbers don't mean that much. The dollar has had nothing remotely close to constant value over time, so both wages and purchasing power have to be adjusted. That is not an easy task, and the methods used clearly don't capture what is going on.
Citing misleading evidence when you don't understand the issue is worse that just giving good analysis.
And the point still stands. At that time one earner households were more comfortably middle class than most two earner households today. I don't care how you try and cook the damn numbers, you can't get past the fact that real wages have clearly fallen for the vast majority of the country.
As to the impact of distribution, sure, there is some of that in there as well. But most of that came from trade policy as well. Tax policy did not do that, taxes are much lower today than they were then and we are still worse off. Social policy was bad too, but again it would never have produced these results without trade, de-industrialization, and the death of the middle class.
It is not about just real wages, it is about real productivity. US GDP per-capita was $65k in 2019, and I suspect real numbers were closer to 50-50. After taking into account government spending for non-tangible government spending like schools, roads and military; and considering 62% workforce participation, $55k ($27/hour) should be an above-average number. Sounds like a lot of cities warrant way higher.
And even then, US trade deficit (aka consumption not supported by productivity) was $2K/year per capita, and on the way to go over $3k in 2021.
No, its about real standards of living, not "wages" or "productivity" or any other dollar figure that can be manipulated to be whatever you want.
Any realistic assessment of how the average family lives would conclude that real wages, real productivity, and standards of living are lower on a per capita basis now than in the the 1950's. The only improvements that have occurred are technological, and have nothing to do with trade benefits.
You can try and cook numbers all damn day, but when it comes down to it 2 working adults cannot support the average family today as well as one could 60 years ago.
Much of that "productivity" you are talking about is paper, just financial manipulations of Wall Street that generate enormous "product" but nothing that really impacts standards of living. Remember the $600 Trillion dollar derivatives market in 2008? Yep that was all "productivity" all right. You can see this in the data, the financial sector has accounted for more and more of our GDP over time.
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 16, 2021, 11:32:32 AM
[ clipped zillion quotes ]
No, its about real standards of living, not "wages" or "productivity" or any other dollar figure that can be manipulated to be whatever you want.
Any realistic assessment of how the average family lives would conclude that real wages, real productivity, and standards of living are lower on a per capita basis now than in the the 1950's. The only improvements that have occurred are technological, and have nothing to do with trade benefits.
You can try and cook numbers all damn day, but when it comes down to it 2 working adults cannot support the average family today as well as one could 60 years ago.
Much of that "productivity" you are talking about is paper, just financial manipulations of Wall Street that generate enormous "product" but nothing that really impacts standards of living. Remember the $600 Trillion dollar derivatives market in 2008? Yep that was all "productivity" all right. You can see this in the data, the financial sector has accounted for more and more of our GDP over time.
That is pretty much what I am talking about. An average family would consume about 60% of goods and services made by that average family, remaining 40% being non-tangable things (such as schools, roads, military as big ticket items). Trade deficit/surplass is added/subtracted, currently +$3k/year per person in US.
If a single working person cannot satisfy demands of entire family - it is either productivity (in terms of goods and services, not $$) is too low; or standard of living is too high.
FOr example, standard of residential footage per person roughly doubled over past 50 years. You may assume that building footage has to be built and maintained, and that means average person consumes more of goods and services in that area, regardless of pricing. Hence need more work, e.g. by having a second family member to get a job.
(https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/houses1.jpg)
Quote from: kalvado on November 16, 2021, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on November 16, 2021, 11:32:32 AM
[ clipped zillion quotes ]
No, its about real standards of living, not "wages" or "productivity" or any other dollar figure that can be manipulated to be whatever you want.
Any realistic assessment of how the average family lives would conclude that real wages, real productivity, and standards of living are lower on a per capita basis now than in the the 1950's. The only improvements that have occurred are technological, and have nothing to do with trade benefits.
You can try and cook numbers all damn day, but when it comes down to it 2 working adults cannot support the average family today as well as one could 60 years ago.
Much of that "productivity" you are talking about is paper, just financial manipulations of Wall Street that generate enormous "product" but nothing that really impacts standards of living. Remember the $600 Trillion dollar derivatives market in 2008? Yep that was all "productivity" all right. You can see this in the data, the financial sector has accounted for more and more of our GDP over time.
That is pretty much what I am talking about. An average family would consume about 60% of goods and services made by that average family, remaining 40% being non-tangable things (such as schools, roads, military as big ticket items). Trade deficit/surplass is added/subtracted, currently +$3k/year per person in US.
If a single working person cannot satisfy demands of entire family - it is either productivity (in terms of goods and services, not $$) is too low; or standard of living is too high.
FOr example, standard of residential footage per person roughly doubled over past 50 years. You may assume that building footage has to be built and maintained, and that means average person consumes more of goods and services in that area, regardless of pricing. Hence need more work, e.g. by having a second family member to get a job.
(https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/houses1.jpg)
Quality has declined considerably, while houses have gotten larger, they have also gotten cheaper in every imaginable way. And doubling would be the MINIMUM to even keep pace with 2 people now working, but in reality the amount of debt on housing, combined with the fact that people can no longer afford things like retirement or college, shows that the larger houses are an illusion, the people living in them don't own them and have no real hope to do so.
It's corporate greed. Universities used to be just tuition; now it's tuition plus five times as much in fees. Retail and restaurant jobs often pay minimum wage – even with the union I was in at Stop & Shop (a grocery store), it was still minimum wage ($11/hr when I was hired, $13.50 now), with the union primarily making sure people were given enough hours (but not more than 8 per day) and that people weren't getting in trouble for no reason, plus benefits for full time employees that I wasn't included in. Without a union (e.g. Walmart), managers could easily force you to work extra without appropriate pay. Back when unions were prominent in e.g. Detroit with auto workers, they made more than I did as a raw amount, meaning 5-6× more inflation-adjusted.
Quote from: 1 on November 16, 2021, 01:20:24 PM
It's corporate greed. Universities used to be just tuition; now it's tuition plus five times as much in fees. Retail and restaurant jobs often pay minimum wage – even with the union I was in at Stop & Shop (a grocery store), it was still minimum wage ($11/hr when I was hired, $13.50 now), with the union primarily making sure people were given enough hours (but not more than 8 per day) and that people weren't getting in trouble for no reason, plus benefits for full time employees that I wasn't included in. Without a union (e.g. Walmart), managers could easily force you to work extra without appropriate pay. Back when unions were prominent in e.g. Detroit with auto workers, they made more than I did as a raw amount, meaning 5-6× more inflation-adjusted.
But there is a flip side to that. All those high pay union auto workers (example; my Mom made about the equivalent to 150k in today's dollars as an accountant for GM due to UAW agreements pertaining to tenure) were a primary reason why manufacturers started going overseas where wages are lower. Pertaining to retail, the reality is that unless you are in managment the chances are you are in an unskilled entry level job. When I worked in Los Angeles we typically would have 500-700 people applying for every cashier or sales position we had posted.
To revive this thread and bring it back on track:
Smaller inventories have a macroeconomic benefit; during economic expansions, retailers will build up their inventories and then during contractions they are forced to mark it down to get rid of it. When retailers stop ordering, then the companies that produce their merchandise have to lay off workers which makes recessions more severe.
You can see that here by comparing Gross Domestic Product with Gross Final Sales, the latter is equal to GDP minus changes in inventories
(https://i.imgur.com/6Vdedxv.png)
It's even clearer on Quarterly Data (this charts ends at 2020 because COVID f*cks up the y-axis)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vz6RjTo.png)
And for most businesspeople, the risk of supply chains collapsing from a global pandemic is much, much, much lower than the risk of their inventory suddenly plummeting in value.