It's having the same sort of impact as unlimited immigration, except that in this case, the workers don't need weekends, or pay taxes.
AI is making almost no difference in hiring at all.
Western executives who visit China are coming back terrified - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45563018 - October 2025
Was Made in China 2025 Successful? [pdf] - https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/Was-Made-in-China... - May 5th, 2025
ASPI’s two-decade Critical Technology Tracker: The rewards of long-term research investment - https://www.aspi.org.au/report/aspis-two-decade-critical-tec... - August 28th, 2024
> Now covering 64 critical technologies and crucial fields spanning defence, space, energy, the environment, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, robotics, cyber, computing, advanced materials and key quantum technology areas, the Tech Tracker’s dataset has been expanded and updated from five years of data (previously, 2018–2022) to 21 years of data (2003–2023). These new results reveal the stunning shift in research leadership over the past two decades towards large economies in the Indo-Pacific, led by China’s exceptional gains. The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five years (2019–2023) is leading in seven. China led in just three of 64 technologies in 2003–2007 but is now the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies in 2019–2023, increasing its lead from our rankings last year (2018–2022), where it was leading in 52 technologies.
The video models are the ones that seem to be attracting the most attention in this area as it seems do similar to sight recognition.
Rather the opposite, I'd say: existing manufacturing automation is built around repetitive motions because an assembly line is making multiples of the same product. Having AI reinvent the wheel for every individual item is completely pointless.
One-off manufacturing can to a certain extent be automated. We're already seeing that with things like 3D printing and dirt-cheap basic PCB assembly. However, in most cases economies of scale prevent that from widespread generalization to entire products: ordering 100 or 1000 is always going to be have significantly lower per-unit costs than ordering 1, and if you're ordering 1000 you can probably afford a human spending some time on setting up robots or optimizing the design for existing setups.
There are undoubtedly some areas where the current AI boom can provide helpful tooling, but I don't expect it to lead to a manufacturing revolution.
Imagine a future where any hardware startup could design and provision an assembly line as easily and cheaply as software startups today use cloud computing. Maybe after a certain scale it becomes economical to consider replacing steps of the manufacturing process with "ASIC" solutions, but maybe there'd be a long tail of things which would continue to remain best served by general-purpose robots indefinitely.
It avoids the need for any sort of parts shipping, and can be easily retooled to make war machines in a time of emergency (which is one of the motivations to bring back american manufacturing).
The main problem with this is that you still need surface-mount components if you are going to make PCBs, and you still need magnets to make motors, etc.
Training these models takes a bunch more time, because you first need to build special hardware that allows a human to do these motions while having a computer record all the sensor inputs and outputs, and then you need to have the human do them a few thousand times, while LLMs just scrape all the content on the Internet. But it's potentially a lot more impactful, because it allows robots to impact the physical world and not just the printed word.
As long as you do that, the penalty for a a slop-based fuckup is just a less efficient toolpath.
The more we can bring down all the difficulty of all these processes, the more we can accelerate manufacturing locally.
That final "millions" is the problem. Automation is great and easy when you will do the same thing millions of times. Sure it might cost half a million to program the robot (which itself cost half a million) - but that is $1.00 per part, and it goes down as you make more. When you are only building 10 though a million dollars is a lot of money and so you want humans - or robots that are "CAPABLE of plannings its own motion".
Costs have been going down. In high school I took the class on how to write g-code (I have one free period so I took shop for non-college bound kids for fun even though I was college bound - it was a great time that I highly recommend even though it was only for fun). These days almost everyone just uses their CAD/CAM and isn't even aware that the g-code is supposed to be a human readable programming language. (it probably isn't)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/12/why-western-...
Not really. The robots are programmed by having a human manually guide it, so the robot itself doesn't really have to do any navigation - it just has to follow a predefined path.
Want to install different variants of dash components? Split it up into methods and have the robot return to a neutral position after each method. You're literally programming it.
Not an American myself, but why should that be good for ordinary American citizens?
Few people make loads of money, some Gen-Xer secure the value of their 401k and the younger ones are out of job?
There is the constant argument that what when machines do everything. We are not there yet, and so far there is no reason to think we will be anytime soon.
If only. In reality they'll be as expensive as they can make them without completely killing sales, just like they are right now.
Aren’t the creative jobs also being taken by LLMs and image generators?
If that's true, why isn't unrestricted immigration[1] good for them? It means that the citizens don't have to do the boring immigrant jobs, but still get the benefits for vast amounts of immigrant-produced goods and services.
The only ones who will lose out are ones who 'want to'[2] do the boring immigrant jobs.
AI can't just handwave all this shit away because 'technology good'. Whether or you agree with these concerns or not, there's a massive backlash from various flavors of nativists about jobs. Why isn't it directed at all of these pie in the sky AI promises?
---
[1] Or, you know, just buying imports from China. What difference does it make to me where a factory is located, when that factory doesn't employ me or my neighbours? The people collecting profits from it aren't going to share them with us.
[2] What does it mean to 'want to' do a 'boring' job? Rent's due in two weeks, 'wants' don't enter into it much.
Yes! I'm pretty sure the guy working his ass of at the factory does so because brain surgeon doesn't pay enough...
Is this the next version of "trickle down economics"?
I think there's something cultural about wanting office jobs related to power over people, where you can always slack instead of waking up every day at 8 to go to the factory
My family owns a small plastic manufacturing plant in the US. This is the biggest problem they face. The western worker's appetite for a low skill monotonous manufacturing job is very small. The business loses employees to Walmart etc. despite the factory having higher pay and significantly better benefits.
Paying higher wages might help retain employees (or not! there are jobs people just won’t keep doing no matter the pay) but doing so could easily increase costs to the point where your product is uncompetitive in the market. It also might just be worth having higher turnover in order to keep prices low.
I do not believe this common claim.
Even $10,000/yr more might not be enough to move the needle all that much on a job that’s backbreaking, monotonous, and with little prospects for career growth. Especially if you have a limited pool of applicants due to your location.
Ludicrous only from the perspective of the employer. Everyone wants something for nothing.
The fact is that regular Americans (i.e. not exploited, immigrant labor, or oppressed out-groups) used to do manual labor and manufacturing in the United States. They took pride in their labor. People haven't changed, the economics have.
As for your last paragraph, the oil fields have been able to meet their need for employees for the most part, and that ticks every one of your undesirable factors. So what gets workers there? Pay.
What happened? Cost disease [1]. All of the big ticket things in that lifestyle (except for the car) skyrocketed in price relative to inflation.
The problem is that American bosses will never hire these kind of people. They can never pass the interview game.
Better pay + benefits than the most rock bottom lowest possible pay + benefits is really pathetic.
And based on the vagueness of your claims, we can assume full-time hours are also out of the picture, meaning no health insurance.
On top of that, tyranical small business owners are usually a nightmare to work for.
Q: Do you ever use an online job service to advertise jobs and collect applications?
Asking because my 5 sons all learned that job portals auto-trash applications w/o a job history (1st time job seekers).
Other viable but never-seen applicants: Minimal or sporadic job history, the most minimal of criminal records, the wrong zip code.
Seen but never hired: Fully qualified people who are awful at job interviews.
I appreciate the answer. And I understand that you may not have more-granular info than this.
But I am wondering what how jobs were advertised prior to utilizing ProbOff/CL. Maybe the answer is this. There was no avenue to get job listings in front of the most likely eyeballs.
Son #1 got employed there early but it turned out that a small group had a deal with management and got 100% of the work. New hires went out on one job immediately and then never again.
Outside of an urban area, you won't necessary be overwhelmed with resumes. If you portray your job realistically, you'll get people realistically interested in your job.
Bit of an aside, but if anyone else is in this position and trying to reach the eyeballs of jobseekers who aren't actively using portals, I really can't recommend local Facebook groups enough.
A post from a real account (not the business) saying "Gizmo Plastics are hiring line workers for $18/h, anyone interested?" will get some guaranteed traction. In my small town Ontario groups, I've never seen a post looking for laborers go ignored.
It rather feels lately like civilization is the project of putting up as many catch-22's as we can.
I’m just thinking that people already spend a lot of time just consuming content, so if it were possible to watch YouTube while at the factory, maybe it wouldn’t be as unpopular.
Today with not just unlimited music (with no adverts), but the vast amounts of audio books you can listen to, it's even more appealing for people with limited financial obligations.
Yeah, I can't make that work. Only my most routine work can be done with the TV on (and providing it's my 5th rewatch).
I grew up doing homework with the TV on and still sometimes work with a tiny video overlay showing some anime or tv show.
You basically pay attention to a small part of it, and switch focus as needed (pause your task or pause the video). You'll still miss a lot of the video but you just don't care.
I know this is unthinkable to some people but I've met more than one person who does it, so it's not ultra-rare. Possibly related to ADD/ADHD? I don't know.
If you look away from your job you might lose a finger,.. or *gasp* even worse, stop production!
I always found the laws prohibiting drivers from wearing earplugs (some exemptions for motorcycles) and the like pretty funny.
US employers are not legally required to make accommodations for people who simply want to listen to music at work.
Today's vehicles already have a lot of sound deadening (and good stereos) and it is becoming a problem for emergency vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvTBmBDPno
> US employers are not legally required to make accommodations for people who simply want to listen to music at work.
So it would be reasonably possible, but since it's not legally required they'd rather make their workers miserable for no benefit, and then complain how difficult it is to hire people?
I do agree with the sentiment that employers should take more efforts to make their jobs enjoyable to do. But some job sites have things that can kill people. The reason that heavy machinery beeps when it backs up is because people died at work before it did.
But, have you ever driven a quiet vehicle in an urban area where there are plenty of objects to block your line of sight? It is quite easy for a emergency vehicle to sneak up on you in a modern vehicle even when you are paying attention.
It's really a simple relationship -- if you block sound, it makes it harder to hear things.
This is exactly the reason why newer emergency vehicles have things like rumbler sirens. These sirens don't do anything to make people more attentive, but what they do is generate frequencies that are more likely to penetrate into modern vehicles.
Classic example of being unwilling to concede the argument.
I think you may start to understand the requirement once you realize the issue is where attention is and is not placed, instead of what sense is being exercised.
I mean, think about it. The recommendation was to consume forms of entertainment. In the factory I worked, there was a mandatory safety rule where you were required to establish eye contact with forklift drivers. Why is that a requirement?
Even setting aside the forklift, having music playing reduces your ability to hear a coworker shout "Help, my clothes are caught on the line. Push the emergency stop".
YouTube cannot be allowed - you need to be ready to work when the line moves the next part to you. There are also safety concerns with watching youtube instead of the various hazards which are always there.
I went to a panel discussion at a conference last year. Operations managers agreed labor was their biggest challenge. The manager for the promotional materials company who was probably around 60 discussed how he has loosened up a bit the last ~15 years. If someone sends a couple texts and it slightly impacts the units they (personally) do per hour, it was better than being super strict and losing employees. He had to adapt because the mentality was far different than when he started in the workforce.
I agree it won’t matter too much, they’ll automate more so they won’t need this many people.
Speaking of which, I don’t really know your business, but a post starting with “my family owns a business” and ending with “we lose workers to Walmart even though we pay them more” (with no specificity as to how much more)…. This really comes off like a problem with the business itself, not the overall market.
I see this all the time at an automotive plant. UAW wages are good, especially after the last contract, but we still get people who struggle putting a sticker on a car for an hour straight before their break or task switch.
UAW wages are "good" but you have to realize that you are competing with a service economy's leftover labor pool. All the good candidates left your manufacturing town already to get a job in an office tower where "good" UAW wages aren't really much to write home about.
For the last multiple decades graduating students have been facing a declining manufacturing job market where it makes just about no sense to get into manufacturing when they can get a degree and work a desk job with better pay and actually be in a job market that's growing over time rather than shrinking.
UAW wages are "good" but only compared to other jobs that are probably in the bottom 50% of desirability, and you're under constant threat of plant closures or the shift toward non-union plants in places like Alabama and South Carolina.
And oh yeah, you're stuck in some declining semi-rural rust belt manufacturing town rather than getting to live your best life in a vibrant growing urban area.
A full 35% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or higher, and those numbers are even higher when you are looking at states/counties that have the major population centers. The county map makes it look like basically every urban area has at least 40-50% bachelor's degree attainment, with standouts like the Boston area having some counties with over 60% attainment.
Almost 30% of Americans work remotely at least some time during the week.
So, basically half of the urbanized population has better options than working in a factory.
In China, working a factory is being compared to a much worse prior standard of living that was much more recent. Today's factory workers were yesterday's subsistence farmers. Americans haven't experienced that level of widespread poverty in at least 100 years.
That seems wholly reasonable to me. Expecting humans to be able to do work like that, and especially to get satisfaction from such work, seems like the aberration.
In the 90s as a high school kid, I made $14/hr as a farmhand when the minimum wage was $4.75. They’d hire 4 crews of 4 guys each and we’d lose about half through the summer. They were great family to work for, but the work was hella hard. You could go retrieve shopping carts for $4.75 an hour and smoke weed all day, and many of my former coworkers did.
If job A pays 80k and job B pays 100k, but job A is 40h and job B is 60h, then job B pays worse. They pay more but not better.
I also don't see offshoring manufacturing as inherently problematic or being out of sight, out of mind (of course exploitation can happen, but that's not inherently a part of offshoring manufacturing).
Workers in China, Vietnam etc are paid significantly less, but their cost of living is less as well. Plus unlike in the west, where manufacturing jobs are not desirable, in places where those manufacturing jobs land they typically provide an economic opportunity that isn't otherwise there.
Basically, why not have high cost of living places produce higher cost goods that pay more, and low cost of living places produce lower cost goods that pays less?
If you mean in terms of general economics, why are some countries cheaper than others, I’m not really qualified to make a statement there. I’m also not talking about if it’s right or wrong. But it is the reality today.
The few factory jobs I've seen were not only monotonous, they were needlessly soul crushing.
For no reason at all, you had to stand for hours on end. Your only breaks were lunch and smokes. Bathroom breaks were monitored like a crime. And you were afforded no distractions from the task, 100% focus required.
Coupled with no care put into making someone feel actually appreciated and the end-products being MBA shrinkflated garbage nobody could be proud of, it's not shocking that no one in their right mind would want to work there.
I’m definitely going to find a way to slip this into a conversation.
Of what?
Of getting on disability (back pain)
And getting more (from the govt.) to sit at home and cook up conspiracy theories on the Internet
How much higher is the pay? Cause the first thing that crosses into my mind is oil rigs, where they get paid more than many software engineers I know do, and there's a huge number of people doing the work happily despite the gruelling conditions. I realize not every business can pay Big Oil salaries, but still, it might be worth thinking realistically about whether your pay & benefits really are better than Walmart's (who are the number 1 employer in the states AFAIR, so they must be doing something right).
One was for a semi-skilled manufacturing position. A little more than just assembly line, but nothing super special or niche. The other was a janitor position at the local public school system.
The differential was not huge, but the janitor paid more. Probably less hours too.
I'm SUPER doubtful of this.
When I last bumped into this, the local Amazon warehouse paid more than all the local manufacturing. It wasn't even close.
Local manufacturing got used to being a local monopoly and being able to underpay. Now that they're not a monopoly, all they do is whine and complain.
Tariffs were supposed to fix that, but now I don’t know if they are effective at all.
The Smarter Every Day scrubber demonstrates that is not true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTGwcHQfLY
The problem is that the US has systematically destroyed all the ecosystem required to manufacture by outsourcing everything.
Maximally efficient is minimally robust.
However, yes, the US (and the West in general) were uniquely victims of elite betrayal, where the financial and business elites decided it was best for them to outsource manufacturing, while telling the urban mass and politicians that this was "everyone's best interest". The current political and now geopolitical disaster followed.
The financialization of America and the UK in the 1980s was a failure in all respects. Stock buybacks made legal, factories closed, Wall Street as an engine of growth. It was all fiction.
General advice is if you’re down on your luck and need a job, you can go there and be at $25 an hour in a few months (step pay increases are mandated by the union). It’s not for everyone but it certainly has less turnover than the local McDonald’s which starts and stays around $14.
Unions should do a better job of marketing to employers that they can supply a trained work force. For example the IBEW here always has a full book of apprentices. An employer can get a qualified electrician along with an apprentice basically guaranteed.
Unions need to quit their management is evil message as well. Unions can do good, but when they call all management evil and breed resentment I can't blame companies for not wanting unions around.
The above is US centrist - in other countries the Unions don't do this.
If every creative job is gone to the AI beast then there will be people willing to do factory work since nothing else will be available.
In my opinion one of the biggest reasons we won't see manufacturing come back to Western countries is that we still believe this is how most factories operate. Chinese people aren't stupid, they have been spending a fortune on automating as much of their manufacturing as possible!
Western labor is never going to compete with Asian labor, so it's no use even trying. If we want to have any chance of matching what China is already doing (let alone beating it), we're going to have to invest an absolute fortune in automation and streamlining: reduce the number of unique products, reduce the part count, reduce the number of vendors, reduce the distance to vendors, and automate everything you can reasonably automate.
Make it capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive and we might be able to keep up.
I don’t think you understand how primitive American society is compared to Asia. Basic survival for rural poor is a car.
When you take away cheap clothes and cheap TVs, all made in modern Asian factories and replace them with shitty American products at 3x the price, the current populist movement will look like a party in comparison.
Lol, Asia is a big and diverse place. Are you really claiming that American society is more primitive than that of farmers in the arse end of Gansu?
Hint, one of those areas is more likely to have flush toilets.
Book is a bit heavy going but well worth a read
The story of Srinivasa Ramanujan fits your sentence, although early 20th C. He studied mathematics from a revision book he had access to in a small place in India then wrote a letter to GW Hardy a professor at Oxford with a range of new and strange results but expressed in the idiom of the revision book.
Some parts of East and Southeast Asia might have been working on paving roads and building schools even just one generation ago. To think they still are "like that" is legitimately an insult to them. That part is largely done and they're moving on.
Would the rest of the world even care anymore? Everyone from Canada to New Zealand is now making plans for long term disconnection from the US. They will not let the next Trump boss them around like they have been this past year. The reputation is torched and so if the US launches another populist movement that leads nowhere and collapses the country as a result why should the other 95% of the planet care?
People from Vietnam, Iraq and many other countries would probably disagree with you
>People in backwards places like rural...
That's not actually true. You want to visit rural Asia and compare.
In rural Asia there are a lot of people who don't have electric, they don't have cars.
Though I don't know why rural is even a topic here. Factories don't exist in rural areas, this exist in cities and towns where the workers live.
It’s always important to talk about rural citizens because politicians pretend that they don’t exist. The rural poor have a lot in common with the urban poor, but are separated both deliberately and by inertia.
"Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis is a good counterpoint.
Industries don't exist in isolation, so these effects propagate. If you can't make cars, you probably won't make good tanks. When we assess the value of a local car industry, how do we account for the "use it or lose it" nature of retaining knowledge built up by industry? Part of learning and skilling up is actually doing the thing you're learning about. It's no surprise that the country the West has skilled up in the pursuit of greater profits is now it's chief rival.
And of course, all of this is before we ask questions like what metric is used to determine the benefit. Efficiency in particular is rife with competing definitions that fit various niche use cases, and for which the underlying assumptions may not be obvious. E.g. thermodynamic efficiency is often calculated using the lower heating value of a fuel, the reasons for which are good, but typically left unstated. A layman comparing thermodynamic efficiencies where differing methods are used might draw an erroneous conclusion if they don't understand that there can be differences.
Chinas value imho is that they are willing to take on shorter and shorter production runs. They have figured out retraining and logistics to the point that they can have 20 customers who only need 1000 - 12000 parts per year, on the back of their 3-4 flagship clients who keep the place running with scale orders.
Still fail to see evidence of that. I wouldnt go around making such a huge blanket statement, without even london horse manure crisis level evidence.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts...
With the exact right approach and enough luck, you can conceive that automation can replace the bodies at the rate they are lost demographically and thus avoid the crisis of underemployment or the crisis of insufficient labour. To far one way or the other and it ends in tears.
Time will tell, and it could all go horribly, terribly wrong, but if any country can thread the eye of that needle, it would be this one.
Factory automation design as a service is already a huge sector but it can get a lot bigger. Of course the capital barrier to entry to standing up a factory for some widget will go up, but the unit price might not. It remains to be seen how far into the low-end, low-volume, high-SKU-count that process will reach. Maybe things like standard-ish robotic cells will allow agility in the factory. If being able to make one-off parts in a highly data-driven factory is Industry 4.0, maybe that's Industry 5.0!
Presumably it will become less possible to spin up production of, say, a whole new design of a speaker in a few days with some new tasks for the workers and some rejigging of basic machines, but it sounds like a sector that will see some interesting progress in the next 50 years.
The thing that no one has cracked yet is that sitting 30 people down at a belt and telling them to follow the manual is easy and flexible and while it's a skill, it's not very technical. Designing the line to do the same thing is hard, fiddly and very, very technical. Whoever does that needs to know the machines available, the sensors, IO, networking, wiring, power, PLCs, HMIs, access paths, be able to design and spec anything custom, etc etc. You also need to feed back to the designers if one aspect is hard to automate (poking through wires is a good example). Even loading workflows: You can't just shout "duo kai" at the machinery as you trolley a palette of magnets to the head of the belt and expect them to get out of the way.
That, combined with the outlay of the machines themselves, limits things you can make with it. The kind of factory in your video seems to a very typical Chinese SME where there are 50-200 people in a simple warehouse with some basic equipment and they contract assemble. These places do not generally run the margins you need to stop production, acquire several million in automation and design services, and start up again.
Fully or just highly automated systems thus get used for high-volume stuff that doesn't change much in a run. Cars, phones, that kind of thing are the classics. Food production also due to the massive volumes.
The floor on where it makes sense to even think of automation is, however, lowering quickly. It's not just Siemens NX that can do it any more, factory management platforms are sprouting from everywhere from Huawei's ERP to Hangzhou student bedrooms, and there are other SMEs starting to do this work at lower costs for smaller outfits.
As long as manual CMs exist and are cheaper, CheapNShit Speakers doesn't need to design its product for automatic assembly, even though it definitely could if it needed to. That creates a kind of "snap to automation" where something that wasn't ever automatable suddenly gets automated, because when the machinery is close enough, the last few sticking points are designed away and suddenly you can do it.
Like I said, the real acid test of when this becomes really useful (or dangerous to the workers, depending on perspective) is when you can quickly reconfigure a production line to make the Black Friday CheapNShit 2000+ speakers rather than the ones you made before. The CMs currently will do that with a WeChat message, a new manual and a palette of parts and have them on a truck tomorrow.
This is likely a place where "AI" will find a home, whatever happens to the chatbots. It's things like allowing a fairly generic robot to pick up a new kind of speaker case and put it on something else without having to have an engineer write a program or even G-code to do it.
Also like AI, this isn't quite like last time when the US lost its manufacturing to China. The US lost low-medium manufacturing to China based on, basically, labour costs. Then it lost the high end on labour and automation that means as long as you have the machine you don't need the expert US workers and network effects because everything you need for that is available within 2 hours in Shenzhen.
China losing the middle-high end to cheaper places implies that automating most of it will remain so hard that it's always more expensive in TCO terms than the cheapest global labour. If labour is only a small part, this is not necessarily true or it may be true only for some products (clothing is a good example of something traditionally hard to automate fully).
On the other hand, automation getting to that state also means the US, or anywhere, can get the manufacturing back if it wants to, by competing not on labour costs, which is unlikely within the next decades, but on the technology and network effects that make it possible to acquire, stand up and run these kinds of line quickly.
I London where I live you can't really afford to buy a house or things like that if you got a job manufacturing anything that's globally competitive which is why manufacturing is basically gone here and people get jobs in finance and the like. We used to have a factory in the London outskirts but it got knocked down and replaced with apartments long ago.
I don't know if it's addicted to easy money so much as the people earning easy money push up the cost of living and force others to do similar to afford to live in the same area.
But I was shocked by how efficient and modernised their factory was, including really rigorous quality control, advanced testing setups, dedicated jigs everywhere just for the testing… and then one video was of an office worker who spent her day making sure everything runs smoothly, juggling customers, orders for parts from vendors, and getting ahold of the right people when something was going wrong.
Incidentally none of my 10GTek stuff has ever failed.
Slight nuance - they have spent a [reasonable amount of money] automating production.
The trick to automating something that ‘isn’t a car’ is often to put in small bits of low-cost and flexible automation that can be moved around and repurposed. IMO this is often what we are bad at in the west - companies can/do setup massive automated sites at huge expense, but there aren’t the skills/infrastructure to do this at the lower end of production (eg if you want to deploy one AMR in the west the AMR companies don’t want to talk to you, and there isn’t really an easy way to get one yourself without talking to an integrator which will charge tens of thousands which will wipe out the benefit, and we don’t have the skills within most small production companies to get a small robot arm/AMR working without external integrators - but a one-AMR deployment might be a more common scenario in China).
It must be a huge expense with risk to design a new factory, automate it end to end and push live hoping the market expectation for the product exists and the automation is as good as planned.
Whereas if you have a manual production line you could have a massive advantage as they can automate out sections ongoing and it allows engineers to build skills in this also as they go.
>The overall number of robots added in China last year was 295,000, compared to 27,000 in Germany, 34,000 in the US and just 2,500 in the UK.
Not really, American manufacturing is already automated. Manufacturing jobs have steadily decreased[0] while output has increased (or stayed steady) in manufacturing since the early 2000's [1]. There is only one reasonable explanation for this -> automation.
While it is true that the Chinese are indeed automated their manufacturing, it still doesn't negate the fact that companies like Foxconn still have 200k employees in China.
IMHO the real reason you'll never see manufacturing come back to the USA is because you can't convince people who are already in less manually intensive labor conditions to go back to more manually intensive labor conditions. Said differently, it's easier to get someone who's family has spent decades doing back breaking work in a rice paddy to work in a factory for slightly better pay than it is to do the reverse.
[0] - https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/forty-years-of-falling...
1. Give up and just outsource manufacturing and be ok with it
2. Invest heavily in automation, technology etc so we remove cost of labor from the equation. Or at least heavily minimize it
3. Put up trade barriers to artificially raise the cost of imported goods, which is what the current admin is trying to do, at least officially
1. leaves us dependent on other potentially adversarial countries, 3. increases the cost of goods sold so puts a burden on the population. So seems like 2. is the only way to go, if the country can get behind it. But it also inherently won't add a lot of jobs.
As for your responses. 1 who is "us" 3. I mean some would be automated etc. There is actually data on how little the cost of labor adds to different parts of manufacturing. 2. You at least have a sustainable economy (I dont mean that in an environmental sense)
They're not mutually exclusive of course. There can be some national protection via tariffs on some types of manufacturing, while investing in automating some other types and just completely ignoring others and keeping those offshore. Problem currently is there doesn't seem to be a much of a strategy.
So we have a set of ad hoc policies (or EOs), that don't seem to have an overarching goal.
I certainly want clothing manufacture back in the U.S. with a focus on using renewable (ie. not microplastic based) textiles to make articles of clothing that don’t wear out in a year or two. I have a handmade pair of pants I bought at a local thrift store that were locally made from domestically produced denim. Got them for $4. New ones from the person who makes them would be around $40-$75. They are custom fitted to you, although I got lucky and the thrift store had one in exactly my width and height.
So far they don’t have any rips, years, and the cuffs aren’t fraying.
My brand new Levi’s and Wrangler’s have fraying cuffs and are much more prone to getting tears because of the thinner fabric. They also seem to stretch after washing or wearing them a long time and then don’t fit as well.
Toys? I want toys for my kids that aren’t full of lead or cadmium, and are something besides battery operated beeping rubbish or something with a screen. I’m glad to pay $25 for a wooden toy. I bought one locally made in Chico, CA at a store called “Chicomade” where everything was locally made.
I don’t see why fast fashion with clothes you need to throw out sooner due to planned obsolescence and plastic trash toys.
Problem is for the most part that cannot be done. There is a market for made in USA, where people are willing to pay more for higher quality, more sustainable, local etc, but it’s still a relatively small market.
Just like airline tickets. People complain about lack of space and bad food, but when presented with the choice most people still pick the cheapest option.
Politicians who are optimizing for votes from a large and ignorant base that hasn’t thought through any of this.
but employs less people as it automates.
I'm guessing that US needs a similar nation-wide service to connect gig-workers of all sorts to factories specifically.
They are gradually not replacing staff as they retire or the occasional person quits on the factory floor due to automation. Their biggest challenge is who will own it in the future - the son and grandson have fully taken over from the founder, but nobody else in the family is really interested.
While it may be boring to someone who use used to doing knowledge work, there are a lot of people who need jobs who aren’t going to be doing knowledge work. They need something.
I worked fast food for a shift before I quit. I found that much more boring and hated it much more than the factory. I’d rather see people employed making stuff domestically rather than have yet another drive-thru window in town.
I grew up in a small town with two fairly decent sized factories. That was a solid job prospect for a lot of people coming out or high school that didn’t know what else they could do. It gave those kids options and kept them in town where they could buy a house, raise a family, and spend money supporting other local businesses. Now they’re both closed and the city is hunting for ways to bring businesses to town. My brother-in-law is driving 100+ miles per day to drive to an area with more jobs opportunities. I’m sure if there was a local factory gig he’d probably take it and save a ton on gas, not to mention getting back 10 hours per week of his time.
I think economic benefit goes beyond just having the lowest price. Having good jobs for people in the country means they have money to spend. If people make next to nothing, all they can afford is Temu quality. This is bad for the citizens, bad for US businesses, and bad for the environment. The only winner is China.
Tariffs won't resolve this issue. Either the goods becomes too expensive to import and are made here or the aren't.
In the case that they're made here then some other good will no longer be produced (if you could magically make both then you would've in the first place). And so your citizens are worse off because they produce the same amount (or less) and pay more for it.
In the case that they're not made here then you just pay more in tariffs and are worse off.
The problem with global trade is that when you trade 10 apples for 10 bananas it doesn't need to be distributed to your citizens equally. So if you go from an economy producing 5 apples and 5 bananas where everybody gets one of each to one where 3 people get 8 apples and 10 bananas the other 2 get 2 apples the GDP still grew from 10 to 20 but people are worse off. Throwing in tariffs to get back to the 5 apples 5 bananas will cause a recession.
The better solution is to increase the top tax rate and redistribute 2 additional apples and bananas to the bottom 2 and then everybody is still better off.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why Trump & Republicans want tariffs as opposed to a higher tax rate.
More like 2-4 at this point, if we're talking about China.
That isn't how it works. Details matter.
A local factory can save a ton of money because it can be more just in time - you don't have to build excess because of shipping times. (shipping costs can also save a lot of money for a local factory).
The states have lots of cheap reliable power (not perfectly reliable, but close enough). If your production line is mostly automated (or could be) the states are cheaper - there isn't much labor anyway.
Production close to engineering makes for a lot of savings because when a part is designed you can get a prototype to testing faster.
there are lots of other factors, and most are not in the favor of local production but there are several that are. Where you fall is an optimization problem and there is no one right answer for everything.
Industrial electricity rates are pretty much the same in China and the US, from 8-9c/kWh. In both countries, however, electricity is going to face upward price pressure from AI datacenters.
> Production close to engineering makes for a lot of savings because when a part is designed you can get a prototype to testing faster.
This already exists in the US. In California, for example, there are many specialty prototype manufacturing companies that focus on this problem specifically. They are adjacent to the r&d firms designing the products.
That's not the type of manufacturing that the recent debate over reshoring is about. It's about production scale manufacturing - creating an American Shenzen with an equivalent amount of jobs - and very soon. But any such capability will be heavily automated, so it won't produce the equivalent jobs.
Compare the build time between Tesla's battery factories in the US and China and consider how many batteries they can sell during the time difference.
Building a factory loses money until the factory starts making products. Good or bad, regulations that cost _time_ are the biggest issue. Labor costs matter but they affect the margins that can be somewhat compensated for by products not needing overseas shipping. A company, especially a new one, can go out of business in the years it takes to build a factory in the US.
All we're doing is building platforms for ads, pits for advertisers to pitch dollars, nothing is getting made, all it does is drive consumerism. Google, Meta, Amazon, aside from now NVidia the whole economy is increasingly built around selling slop that we decreasingly know how to make anymore.
Basically, I think future wars will be fought with AI drone swarms. If your AI is crappy, then your drones will suck and you'll lose the war.
It's true that today's use cases are about AI slop content. Then again, a lot of modern internet technology was spear-headed by porn sites.
[1] "Private sector spending on equipment, adjusted for inflation"
That's 0.3%.
Now try presenting it the distribution of typical job gains/losses!
> Now try presenting it the distribution of typical job gains/losses!
You first!
In any honest conversation, the person presenting the numbers will provide this, but I'll bite:
How many years are cumulative negative in this table?
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=ne...
(I guess the correct way to model this would be as the difference of Poissons between hires and separations, but a student-t should do just fine since we don't have separations)
https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/10/03/how-gdp-hides-indust...
Now there's a populist making political hay, throwing out numbers about trade deficits, which ignores revenue from services. Yes, there is have a trade deficit on goods, that was a long-term strategy because services were a superior investment.
Manufacturing is an inferior way to make money unless you're planning to go to conventional war, and since the US is a nuclear superpower it's never going to get into an existential boots-on-the-ground Serious War again unless it just wants to cosplay. Nukes make conventional war for survival irrelevant.
So: it took decades to burn the boats with manufacturing, and trying to rebuild them in a few years is a hilarious folly. It absolutely will not go anywhere, and honestly shouldn't anyway. There is real danger, however, that the US burns the boats on the carefully crafted service sector as well.
sure in the sense in which operating an airline or high speed rail network makes you less money than running an ad or porn website but the world doesn't run on money, it runs on infrastructure. I believe we have a term for civilizations that value money over power, we call them decadent.
If you're content living in Mark Zuckerberg's slop metaverse that's a possible route to go down but it's important to understand that the world will belong to countries that focus on what powers that entertainment dystopia, and the US has some competitors who have the good sense to understand that the material world matters.
Airlines and high speed rail systems are also services. Heck, even Tesla's real value isn't in manufacturing, it's in the (delusional, but nonetheless) belief that they're going to make an absolute killing on services at some point in the future. They could probably sell off their manufacturing arm and their stock price would increase.
So how come Russia hasn't annexed Ukraine yet? And why spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year maintaining a conventional military when you already have nukes?
And when are you going to press that button? Do you nuke Eurasia the second they cease diplomatic communications? When a cargo ship heading to LA founders for mysterious reasons? When a small detachment plants a flag on Little Diomede Island? When they capture Attu Island? When they land troops on Hawaii? When they declare war? When they are walking in San Francisco? When they capture Salt Lake City? When they are 15 minutes away from the missile fields? When DC falls?
What do you imagine the world is going to look like afterwards? If you fired too soon, how are you going to stop the revolution breaking out after you've killed hundreds of millions of innocent people? If you fired too late, why bother? The country is lost already, surely you're not going to nuke yourself?
Besides, that's assuming the existential war happens in the US itself. The US isn't self-reliant, and it will never be. Are you going to nuke any country refusing to sell critical materials to the US? Sure, the US has started wars in the Middle-East for oil before, but nukes?
Russia is not fighting for their survival in Ukraine, even though Ukraine is.
Sitting in the Whitehouse facing the red button, you ask yourself which city are we willing to trade by pushing that button? Millions in New York or Los Angeles? That's why they will never use nukes. To retain world hegemon status and protect your interests, you need conventional military strength. Because if your aircraft carriers are sunk and the vast majority of your fleet is disabled or destroyed, what will you do? Your shipbuilding capacity is so low that you've basically already lost, you can't project power overseas without a fleet and you can't reproduce it fast enough. What are you going to do then nuke them? They will retaliate, and every decision maker knows that. No one will choose to kill millions/tens of millions of their citizens because they lost a fleet thousands of kilometers from home.
What would be awesome is if half-assed finance bro speeches weren't being thrown around as serious macro.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the extra wealth ends invested in the house market. This increases the cost of terrains for both old and new homes. It is also not very productive just to buy one thing to extract rents from it. ( There is value in handling the rent, building or reforming and old house).
The urban land is limited and requires government infrastructure to connect it.
Another big cost is the university.
I can't find numbers from earlier than 1980, but 18-44 _is_ lower, though again the rate in 1980 was just a few percentage points higher, and not nearly high enough to imply that home ownership out of high school was in reach for the majority: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf
Americans actually want unions back, but because anti-union propaganda is so prevalent, they confused themselves into thinking they want manufacturing jobs back
People thinking they can go back to making good money in a widget factory is like thinking because you had an ascendant economy in 1836 exporting wood before global electrification, then that lucrative job is always waiting for you even in 2025.
Does not compile.
The main argument would be if you are relying on other countries and you can't produce anything yourself then you need to rely on other countries being good trading partners. If the relationship with those trading partners fails your economy is in trouble.
No single country can produce everything it currently imports much less compete globally on every product.
Does the government just prop up every industry with subsidies? Or use tariffs to make everything as expensive as domestic goods?
A house was 2 years salary.
There are issues with national security, reliance on less than friendly nations etc. For instance, we'd want to grow our own food, even if importing would be cheaper. But those surely aren't the majority of manufacturing jobs.
Given the choice of increasing the number of high paying, high skills jobs or the number of relatively low skill, dangerous manufacturing jobs, why wouldn't we choose the former?
I'm curious about your reasoning on this. China was not the one at the top of my list of "Major world powers likely to have a civil war sooner than later"
Of course some things are more sensitive and should be made domestically even at lower efficiency / higher cost. But if that’s applied to everything then we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Plus the opportunity cost of not doing something else that we are more uniquely positioned to excel at.
If you have no leverage during a negotiation and your counterpart has can say 'no' without having to give up anything then you're screwed.
America doesn't have to be the best manufacturers, but we do need to have the ability to say, "fuck it we'll build it ourselves" when the other side of the table says something we don't like.
And anyone living in the fantasy utopia where the whole world agrees on everything and there's peace all the time... read more history.
If China wants to play hardball then Vietnam can make the goods. This is the great system we had until Trump decided he'd piss off every country. We had a very much you vs the world when doing diplomacy as USA but now it's just you vs USA which is a much weaker position.
There's always a Vietnam.
Even now with all the talk about "rare earth minerals". They're not rare, everybody has them, its just nobody else wants to pollute their rivers mining and refining them when China is willing to.
Idk, the trend in manufacturing seems to be towards more and more high skilled work and less dangerous or low-skill work as time marches on. Your post also positions it as a binary choice, where we must either increase IT service jobs / web services or manufacturing, which doesn't seem to be true given the landscape of the job market these days.
Personally I would like it if there were a more diverse array of job opportunities in general for people looking to gain and employ skills in machining, fabrication, factory automation, production, etc. "Just learn to code, bro" has been a meme since I was in college, but at this point at 33 every single person I know who is doing even 'kinda ok' has either gotten a tech job or gone into nursing. Exactly 0 of these people actually care about technology or are interested in computers at all, but it feels like the only avenue available anymore for Americans. That doesn't seem good or sustainable.
No matter how much of a cash cow the tech industry has been, is it really a virtue to be totally anemic in such a basic function as ability to produce actual, physical goods?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean other than individual rich people started outsourcing labor to poor countries because they were allowed to import the products of that labor back into the country cheaply.
> Now there's a populist making political hay, throwing out numbers about trade deficits, which ignores revenue from services.
This is just nonsense. The trade deficit includes services, and grows a negative balance of payments that has been growing for 50 years. It would be different if that money were used for investment, but that money was just given to the wealthy. Reversing the trade deficit will not be enough. It's not that the government is debt-ridden, it's that the nation is debt-ridden. We're borrowing foreign cash to buy foreign imports. All we have left is to sell off land, buildings, and exclusive franchises.
But that's populist. As in the population that won't just be able to move to a country that isn't broken.
I mean, every single part of this is wrong, and there's nothing in it that resembles an economic argument. We need to bring manufacturing to the US because we need to produce something in order to be paid. We have no advantage in services, we only pretend to have one because we have wealthy people who import talent and who are themselves immigrants. We are not only not working, but are badly educated. I have no idea why you think that the world will continue to feed America for free, forever. What we're doing is selling the furniture and the fixtures, and pretending like everything is just fine.
And the people who inherited the furniture and the fixtures are like, yup, nothing's wrong.
I would even say we need to produce something in order to remain a sovereign nation. If we buy everything from China, we're governed by China.
Do not underestimate this as a real population.
Here's a graph of actual private investment money going into factories in the US since 1950. It proves my point:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RC1Q027SBEA
I guess the tariffs are serving some other purpose, like forcing foreign governments to bribe him under-the-counter(?) That'd explain his rapid increase in net worth since taking office.
"Our goal is to create a company that can do anything short of manufacturing physical objects directly, but will be able to do so indirectly, much like Apple has other companies manufacture their phones."
In other words, we are a knowledge economy and outsource like it's the 1990s with a bit of "AI" fantasies thrown in. The crash cannot come soon enough.
I'm not saying he's wrong just yet, I'm just pointing out that he owns a propaganda mouthpiece and is willing to lie on a grandiose scale to protect his business interests.
"We superior Westerners with our moral billionaires would never... Hey! What're you doing!"
The problem lies in practice- when they start bribing government officials to cheat regulations, and when they engage in all manner of anti-competitive malfeasance against their workers and their customers.
In general, I'm skeptical of claims that only way to attain that kind of wealth is by screwing people, considering Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan built their wealth by being the best in the world at something hundreds of millions of people enjoy. I'm not convinced the mere act of being a billionaire makes someone an asshole, considering how much those two gave, especially to Chicago's South Side.
However, I would support just enough of a wealth tax to prevent people from using their wealth to stifle the American dream.
The machine tools were all made 50+ years ago. Changing anything was a dangerous thing to do, because you might cause jobs that have known and reliable setups that are done a few times a year in quantity, to fail, erasing the profits for the job, and possibly losing customers.
The rush to fill brand new high energy intensive data centers with hardware that has commercially useful lifetimes measured in months (instead of decades for machine tools) seems quite short sighted to me.
What hardware is this? Most hardware including GPUs are cycled between 5 and 8 years.
Innovation occurs on a sigmoid curve, we're still very early in the sigmoid for software and computer hardware, and very late in the sigmoid for machining, unless you include CNC, in which case, we're back to software and computer hardware being the new parts.
A better example would be the tape out and lifetime for semiconductor fabs, which are only about 70 years old and have lifetimes measured in the decade range.
where and why did you come to this conclusion?
They are things like: -Measurement tools that can be checked easily against Measurement standards (its taught as good practice to check this anyway each use) -files -transfer punches -feeler gages (again, easily checked) -bore gages -gage pins - 123 blocks - on and on...
If you don't know something for sure, it's best to not make assumptions. We're not LLMs and don't need to spit out something confidently without understanding it.
> Recent purported comments about Nvidia GPU hardware utilization and service life expressed by an “unnamed source” were inaccurate, do not represent how we utilize Nvidia’s technology, and do not represent our experience.
It has a pile of GPUs that are completely obsolete for any task: they use way too much power, have a large form factor that burns up a PCIe x16 slot, are loud, some need extra power cables, lack driver support on modern operating systems, and in return for all that don’t have as much power as something much better you could get for $100.
Value on eBay seems to be about $10-$15, mostly for people with a retro computing hobby or people removing semiconductor components for other purposes.
An obsolete data centre isn’t worth much either. (We have a small one made from equipment being liquidated from local data centres that have been upgraded.) The power consumption is too high and it is not set up for efficient HVAC for modern ultra high power draw workloads.
Side quest: Virtualized instances at cloud providers never get upgraded unless recreated. I bet there are millions of VMs running for years on specs and prices of 2018-2020.
> Recent purported comments about Nvidia GPU hardware utilization and service life expressed by an “unnamed source” were inaccurate, do not represent how we utilize Nvidia’s technology, and do not represent our experience.
The 3 year number was reported by the FT this year from a bunch of companies, where they were saying their accountants are extending to 5 years.
Another example, MS just moved from 4 years to 5.
Source - I regularly work with IT departments and review their contracts as part of diligence.
The parent comment was:
> Data centre hardware is more like 3 years.
That comment is actually referencing the standard warranty period (which is indeed typically 3 years), which may or may not be consistent with the useful life of server hardware (which is much more subjective and varies based on appliance).
However, the hardware situation you described sounds very brittle to me. If the machine shop is so tightly constrained and error-phobic, that sounds like there's very little space of tinkering, exploration or innovation.
Unless that was your overall point, that capacity in hardware manufacturing has rotted away to the point where things are hanging on by a thread.
There are general purpose machines that you can make new parts on, and you open a pilot plant if you want to experiment with new manufacturing techniques.
This is the opposite of brittle. You say this as if those things are desired here. Those things would be a net negative to a well known production process for complex parts.
After years, that process has been refined to basically the limits of the machines and the physics involved, to optimize cost vs speed.
There is no "tinkering" or "innovation" necessary, and it would be highly detrimental. The experimental part is done until a new machine might provide some benefit (Often this is done by the manufacturer trying to sell them). Then you would test it out on that machine, not fuck up an existing well-running process.
Also - not everything requires improvement or tinkering. Some things are just done. Even if you could make them slightly better, it's not worth the overall cost over time for everyone. Being "better" is not enough, it has to actually be worth being better. Even things that are worth it, if you want customers to use your new thing, you have to support their old thing, even if that's painful or annoying for you.
This is something that lots of ecosystems used to know (fortran is a good example, which is why NETLIB code from the 70's is still in wide use) but some newer ecosystems can't understand.
Don't customer needs change over time? How would one adapt to shifting demand, or new materials becoming available, or old materials going out of supply.
Starrett doesn't really compete on price, as evidenced by the fact that this is a $95 item whereas the cheap alternatives go for closer to $10 on Amazon. So they're probably not making or selling very many of them. But they sell enough to make it worth keeping them in stock, and eventually they'll run out so they'll need to make new parts. Assuming low volume (I say this just in case I've accidentally picked the one weird thing that does sell like hotcakes), they're not going to spend any engineering time evolving that design. The input materials aren't going to stop being made. It is what it is, it does what it does, some people buy it, and so the name of the game becomes how do you make that specific thing they want with the least overhead? You use the same tooling you've used for the last 50 years. When you need a new batch of parts, you pull out that tooling, stamp out a bunch of leaves, and put the tooling away until you need it again.
There are many many manufactured items that fall into this category.
I'm not a professional, I'm a metalworking hobbyist and the cheap imported electronic tools are more than good enough for me. However, my Starrett Dial Test Indicator is like jewelry, it's so beautifully well made. My cheap Chinese mechanical DTI is probably almost as accurate, but one is obviously far better made than the other.
That's very unlikely. New materials would require the company requesting the part to reengineer it, recertify it, or at least retest it. But even still we're not coming up with materials that are a significant improvement in most fields. Aerospace, sure. It can be worth it to iterate and improve. Most things, a part that's worked for 50 years will keep working and will be happily profitable in maintenance mode. Those customers want reliability, not to test some improvement on a part that has negligible impact in the overall system.
And the common metals (gears are typically steel, maybe a yellow metal) are made in such large amounts that new materials are going to cost a heck of a lot more. So the customer is going to wreck their profit while the machine shop probably isn't going to have to change their process that much.
There definitely is innovation in machining. New processes are making tighter tolerances more achievable or material removal faster. But to the top commentor's point (who showed me how to use a benchtop lathe over a decade ago), the capital investment for a new machine plus the labor of duplicating all of your work plus the unknown maintenance costs, etc etc etc just don't make sense when Moore's law doesn't apply.
If that factory burns down or a forklift crashes into the machine, it might be gone with no chance of recovery because the knowledge is gone.
For sure, but how do you know?
If it's only via:
> The experimental part is done until a new machine might provide some benefit (Often this is done by the manufacturer trying to sell them). Then you would test it out on that machine, not fuck up an existing well-running process.
...then I worry about the efficiency of improvement. Sure, manufacturing equipment salespeople definitely are in touch with what consumers want ("Everyone is buying lamb now, buy our new breed of high-birth-rate sheep!"), but that's under the assumption that manufacturers never improve/iterate on their own processes ("Our farm is competitive because we've found that feeding sheep our special high-protein diet increases birth dates").
Rather than relying on the consumers-experimenters-manufacturers game of telephone, it seems likely to me that many manufacturing improvements have been driven by marginal tweaks/improvements made on the factory floor.
For example, there are a ton of cheap crappy woodworking tools. Think Stanley etc. They barely do the job if at all. Then there are a group of vendors like Wood River that constantly create newer tools that are much more expensive than what you find in a big box tool store. And then farther up the food chain are vendors like Lie Nielsen who craft luxury tools that are amazing to use.
This market segmentation extends to most tools; someone like Woodpecker comes up with a ton of clever tools for marking/measuring etc for woodworking, then others copy them. Oldest story in capitalism.
The manufacturing improvements in this process are non-stop. For some really good examples in consumer electronics, read "Apple in China" to see how China transformed into a power house in a relatively short amount of time.
In actual engineering, one can work out the theoretical limits (strength, expansion, etc) and measure the current product's performance against the limits. A new widget-making machine or process cannot imbue widgets with physics-defying properties. Any fundamental improvements can only be made on the outside, auch as new alloys; but that would be an entirely different product, nor the one you've been selling for 40 years that your customers trust and love.
The ecosystems are an approximation of the people that run them. The ecosystems want to get rich quick and cash out with no regard for economic sustainability in the medium or long term because that's what the people who run them want.
Isn't the entire point of a machine shop to be these things?
> capacity in hardware manufacturing has rotted away to the point where things are hanging on by a thread.
You cannot make a profit on a manufacturing line that is not being utilized. Keeping spare tools around and functional just in case is very expensive insurance policy.
Semiconductor manufacturing follows these rules as aggressively as possible. The entire line is built based on the speed of the highest cost tools. There are cases where having redundant tooling would definitely prevent some scrap events, but the premium on this options contract is never worth it on average.
The technical term for that is "the real world". Moment of perspective on just how weird the software people are that they don't just accept mucking around as expensive and dangerous.
It's hard to argue that most if not all of the recent innovations in manufacturing concern making chains more modulable, and easier and cheaper to modifywhich you could see as bringing manufacturing closer and closer to software engineering and this is probably to be even more true in the year to come.
Large scale automation using mostly wireless technology, easily reconfigurable pick-and-place machine and robot conveyor, cheap additive manufacturing, easy to use and cheap CNC machining with precision which were until recently limited to very expensive models, we are quickly getting to a point where configuring a mostly automated short run is both manageable and cost effective provided you have invested in the tooling and have the engineers able to put it in place efficiently.
I think that when people talk about bringing back manufacturing, most think Ford Model T assembly line in 1900 when the norm is quickly becoming a SpaceX-like pacing. That's basically what you are competing against in South East Asia and it sadly has far less need for an uneducated workforce than many expect.
If you like visual media, the "Strange Parts" YouTube channel is an interesting source for glimpses into modern, mostly Chinese factories: https://www.youtube.com/@StrangeParts/
Since you're asking about pick and place specifically, https://www.opulo.io/ is an interesting example of how far/cheap you can push such machinery (and the design in and of itself is interesting from a manufacturing point of view). Not all that relevant from a mass-production point of view, though.
I'm also kind of curious as to know what kind of machine shops you base this on. Most production companies, labs and even small fabricators I've seen have continued to develop and to optimize their infrastructure and processes. To take the numbers discussed here: 50 years ago, (C)NC machines, CAD and CAM were in their infancy. And that stuff certainly has changed some things in the world of fabrication.
btw: If we understand "machine shop" as a mass production environment with modern, integrated production lines, it is my anecdotal experience that there is a massive amount of muckery and fuckery involved in getting such an environment to run (usually called "integration" or some such which probably looks better on business cards). There's also a good chance that over the years - or decades - different people will engage in further iterations of the muck-pile to modify the system for new requirements from high on up or weird edge cases, to replace components that are no longer available with other stuff or to do whatever else the day might call for.
It is very britlle.
The situation described is what happens when there is significant loss of knowledge, little pressure to improve productivity and low products turnover. You start to fear changing things because you doubt you would be able to get back to the previous situation. That's a huge red flag because you are one unexpected incident/failure away from a very difficult situation.
That's why someone mentioned process knowledge in another thread. If you have mastery of the process required to setup a manufacturing chain, you are far less afraid of changes and that's indeed key to being efficient and innovative.
But the original commenter is also right that volume is key here. If your volumes are so low that short time unavailability or a small amount of failures is life threatening, you simply don't have the breathing room to properly operate.
For plenty of industries, margins dictate that this is the desired outcome. The goal is to optimise output, not react quickly to changes.
There are factories that work to order and can change to adapt to customer needs. These are fewer and further between, and tend to be more expensive as they aren't (by design) able to take advantage of economies of scale.
for many machine shops the level of physical risk is > 0, often by a large amount.
making widgets for X means handling large quantities of red hot metal; even simple stuff that's easy to get your hands around often shoots tons of oil, gas, and metal shavings in volumes that could hurt or cripple people.
if my dev VM gets borked I reboot or revert it, but factories aren't so simple
I was on the implementation end of a considerable amount of industrial automation and technological advancement about 10 years ago. When we were on site the result of making mistakes started at the death of a team member. There were a plethora of things that could kill you horribly, falls, hazardous environment, rotating equipment, etc.
Yet we all survived overhauling processes in hundreds of plants. Working in hazardous environments isn't untenable, or even particularly difficult to do safely. In fact we worked at a much faster pace (with fewer mistakes) than corporate world I work in now.
By contrast, the Chinese have mastered process knowledge, transferring from one domain to the next. If we want to compete with them, it’s worth knowing what doing well looks like.
We're not even getting back to that level, we've never reached iPhone level of manufacturing in the US or Europe.
At least accept how your nation thinks on average, no weaseling around simple fact of today's reality.
[0] https://democracy-technologies.org/participation/consensus-b...
1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Climat...
it's been like that since before George W Bush was lock-step with Fox News and a GOP led Congress.
the only difference is in 2025 the billionaires funding these things are as foreign as they are domistic
"The main function of this site is to produce our standard Starlink kits. Right now, we’re producing 15,000 a day straight out of the factory.
Raw plastic palettes come in, raw aluminum comes in and we make those into the Starlink kits and ship them right out to the customer zones."
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2025/03/06/spacex-bastrop-factor...
I've worked in a niche assembly line in North America where we populated some of the board components in-house, but they were etched in batches off-site.
The housing, maybe. Makes sense to produce that domestically at the volume SpaceX requires, less shipping costs because the dishes do take up volume.
But the PCB? Almost certainly not. With any luck they're making and assembling the PCB in house, but the components originate from a lot of suppliers and there are a lot of components on it [1]. Personally, I'd guess the latter, given that the PCB contains a lot of pretty novel tech [2] of which I'm certain that SpaceX wants to be able to iterate on as fast as they can, without having to wait for even a day or two for a new plane full of PCBs from China.
[1] https://wccftech.com/starlink-user-terminal-apple-supplier-t...
[2] https://hackaday.com/2021/01/11/starlink-satellite-dish-x-ra...
Regarding components, it's not like they are making chips in the same plant as a laptop plant in China either, are they?
I guess the question is which components function or cost benefit the most from tighter coupling, and which components (eg antenna) do you isolate to keep your secret sauce internally controlled.
China today is virtually unrecognizable compared to even 10 years ago, though.
The US won the cold war and came to believe they were untouchable. Private interests don't care about nation states, and there was more money to be made by selling the foundation of the West's security than there was in preserving it, especially since the enemy had been vanquished.
The knowledge is still there, but American labor is expensive as hell compared to overseas competitors and so any shop in the US has to contend balancing their profit margin and costs to remain competitively priced.
When doing machine shop jobs, it's far easier to bury the cost of initial tooling/fixturing in the initial first job as a separate line charge for NRE. It's alot harder to sell to customers that you will charge them that cost on subsequent orders. You can charge customers for "setup overhead" on subsequent orders but that should be the cost of putting any existing tooling into service, not engineering new ones because you decided to change shit on a whim.
Tell that to the people who lost FOGBANK, or rather, the knowledge and most importantly the practical experience on how to make it. Or Emmentaler cheese - the one with the bubbles. Turns out, you need something only discovered when someone noticed the bubbles began to vanish... small contaminations from microscopic hay particles [1] that went away when manufacturing switched to fully sealed vats.
There is always, always undocumented steps and unknown implicit assumptions involved in any manufacturing process. No matter how good the documentation is, you need the practical experience.
And that, in turn, is also why the US is producing so much military surplus - should there ever be a full blown war with Russia or China, or there be any other need for a massive invasion land war for whatever cause, there is a shit ton of stuff on stockpile and the production can be rapidly scaled up by experienced personnel training fresh recruits. That would be outright impossible to do if there were no experienced personnel.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mystery-of-disappearing-hole...
However, you are right that engineer salaries have to be factored in. If expensive engineers are unfamiliar with an old process, it will take them a lot longer and the break even point will be pushed out farther.
And that's not just because of the rapid advances, but also because servers are expensive to run relative to their purchase price, and setup costs are cheap. For machining tools setup costs can be substantial, and the cost of keeping an old machine around is small
A lot of cheap stuff through history that was definitely not made to last. I had paper dolls as a child. So did my mother. Probably her mother too - I'd ask, but she's dead.
How long do you expect a car to last? 100k miles (160k km), at least? It wasn't all that long ago that they were dead at 100k.
They used to add talc and sawdust to bread because they were cheaper than flour. Talk about chasing a quick buck. I very highly doubt they even cared about the next quarter. More realistically, things were built using the cheapest parts they could to make what they wanted - and they wanted things that would sell. Sure, some made things nicer than others but that's no different now.
Most of the things that we have now - old fridges, chairs, and so on - are flukes. They survived despite the odds.
Would most people even know if an MP3 player was built to last? How about an ink pen?
To continue the car analogy, I could replace almost any part easily, with simple tools I have at home, on my 1990 GMC 1500 truck. Parts are plentiful and cheap, plenty of room to work on the engine, nothing is hidden inside black boxes. It's got 280k miles on it and still running great.
To contrast that with my 2020 Subaru Crosstrek hybrid, is much more difficult to work on, can't even fit my hands to access anything that's not on the top of the engine, other repairs requiring full engine removal and specialized tools. There's more electronics and more completely sealed systems.
Same can be said about some household appliances, and even computers. Not only were things, generally more repairable, but repair didn't require specialized tools in most cases, we didn't have to first melt glue, resolder SSDs, etc.
My old compaq Armada may not have been built to last at the time, but it was certainly stupid easy to repair and replace every single component in it.
For a while I still used a wonderful and thick winter (loden) coat originally owned by my great-grandfather, from the early 20th century.
Dishes and silverware. Toys, books. Tools. A modern hammer looks much more fancy but it works no better than an ancient dwarven-made one that gives you +10 strength when used. Musical instruments. Some kitchen utensils, especially ones used for traditional cooking and food preservation methods.
Boots and shoes! They were repaired repeatedly (that also means they were easily repairable, not so easy with current shoes and their materials and layers).
It's just that the fast-paced, built to last 6 months stuff gets all the good press.
You see the same process that destroyed Toys r Us and Sears more recently.
This was all on purpose to extract whatever could from the corpse or USA manufacturing
Of course, this could simply be the perspective of someone turning 50 this year.
I've made the comment on here before that I believe it's short term energy optimisation, in that it used to be seen as reasonable to much heavier objects around. We've made everything so light we've lost the infrastructure for moving heavy stuff around when we might need to.
Kids today have no concept of how heavy workstations, TVs or monitors used to be, and they think it's exaggeration. Let alone tools, cars, appliances etc.
e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2019/01/03/new-ve...
The 2000 Accord sedan is 2,712lbs, not 2,987lbs (which would be the wagon).
The 2019 Civic sedan is 2,743–2,923lbs depending on equipment/trim.
So yes, the Civic compared to an older car of similar size did get heavier.
The Miata proves that cars don't have to be heavier, but the Miata also took advantage of much more aluminum compared to the older models. Maybe mainstream cars should also switch to use more aluminum to keep weight down, and you're right that the reason they don't is because oil is cheap enough where weight isn't a priority enough to use more expensive aluminum instead of steel.
Good to know.
> So yes, the Civic compared to an older car of similar size did get heavier.
If the minimum is 1% heavier and the maximum is 2% lighter then I would not say "did get heavier".
They picked that specific year Accord because it's the same size as a sedan as that specific year Civic sedan, so it makes no sense to then compare the weight to the much larger Accord wagon variant. You might as well compare the sedan to a crossover to argue that the sedan didn't get heavier.
The range is 1% heavier to 7% heavier comparing the sedan to the sedan. Both ends of the range are heavier, so "did get heavier" is an accurate statement.
If we know that trim is worth at least 6%, and we don't know how to align the cars, then the confidence interval around "1% to 7%" extends far enough to overlap some negative percents.
So the ever increasing weight of cars, trucks, SUVs, and especially semi-trucks is also responsible for our roads being shit, full of potholes, and expensive to fix.
In some areas the roads are shit due to weather conditions, mainly frost heaves. This has little to do with vehicle damage.
However the increase has also been offset with weight savings in other places.
- The use of aluminum in suspension components and body panels
- Long ago the move to unibody over body on frame for small cars
- smaller engines, V8s weigh more than an inline 4 cylinder and require heavier suspension components.
For example a 1989 Lamborghini Countach 25th weighs around 3200lbs which is slightly heavier than a 2022 VW Golf GTI (3150~)
I see comments that blame safety technology (electronic components) for increasing the weight of a car but a blind spot monitoring system probably weighs less than 5lbs. A rear camera is also around that.
Structural safety and airbags do add to a cars weight but these changes have made cars extremely safe.
They were fun monitors - we had a lab full of them, they would degauss on startup, and the degausser would induct into the monitor next to it (and a little bit into the monitor after that).
Don't let me get started about fixed frequency, X11 modeline guessing (wrong of course) and needing a second monitor to even get back to the original config.
It's possible they also had more glass than typical for a 21" monitor, I don't recall if they were any flatter than the Viewsonics or not.
I wish I still had one around, just to degauss it occasionally.
Our field also have these IBM AS/400 or older running for 30+ years in a server room at the back of an office floor. They are more feared than revered.
"That's not my problem" is something humans have been dealing with since before they mastered the art of sharpening a stick.
Humans, however, are not immune to being hopelessly outsmarted themselves.
And what are we doing with AI now? We're trying to build systems that can do what human intelligence does - but cheaper, faster and more scalable. Multiple frontier labs have "AGI" - a complete system that matches or exceeds human performance in any given domain - as an explicitly stated goal. And the capabilities of the frontier systems keep advancing.
If AGI actually lands, it's already going to be a disruption of everything. Already a "humankind may render itself irrelevant" kind of situation. But at the very limit - if ASI follows?
Don't think "a very smart human". Think "Manhattan Project and CIA and Berkshire Hathaway, combined, raised to a level of competence you didn't think possible, and working 50 times faster than human institutions could". If an ASI wants power, it will get power. Whatever an ASI wants to happen will happen.
And if humanity isn't a part of what it wants? 10 digit death toll.
Don't think "smart human". Think about a few trillion scam artists who cannot be distinguished from a real person except by face to face conversation.
Your every avenue of modern communication and information being innundate by note-perfect 419 scams, forever.
This is particularly threatening because AI is much less constrained on size, energy and training bandwidth than a human; should it overtake us in cognitive capabilities within the next century, I don't see a feasible way for us to keep up.
You might argue that AI has no good way to act on the physical world right now, or that the current state of the art is pathetic compared to humans, but a lot of progress can happen in a decade or two, and the writing is on the wall.
Human cognitive capability was basically brute-forced by evolution; I think it is almost naive to assume that our evolved capabilities will be able to keep up with purpose-build hardware over the long run (personally, I'd expect better-than-human AGI before 2050 with pretty high confidence).
Yes, and that's why civilizations have kept rising and falling throughout history.
Because fossil fuel is stupid useful and there's no way we're going to stop burning it. And then we get to the climate scenarios that aren't compatible with our current sophisticated civilization, even with the currently accepted climate science (that always seems to underestimate what actually happens).
The damage is too limited and happens far too slowly. Even the unlikely upper end projections aren't enough to upend the human civilization - the harms up there at the top end are "worse than WW2", but WW2 sure didn't end humankind. At the same time: the ever-worsening economics of fossil fuel power put a bound on climate change even in a "no climate policy" world, which we are outperforming.
It's like the COVID of global natural disasters. Harmful enough to be worth taking measures against. But just harmless enough that you could do absolutely nothing, and get away with it.
The upper bound on AI risks is: total extinction of humankind.
I fucking wish that climate change was the biggest threat as far as eye can see.
AI is only a threat if we suddenly reach sci-fi levels where AI concludes that the earth is better off without humanity on it and there's zero indication that we're anywhere near that today.
The good news is that our society will likely collapse or require resources pulled away from power/water hungry AI datacenters well before we see any actual I in AI
To use OP as an example, in a lot of places, you'll find an ancient milling machine or a lathe that's dedicated to running a single job a few times a year. The machine was depreciated decades ago, but it can still do that job and there's no reason to get rid of it.
What modern tools give you is speed and flexibility. Many shops need neither.
Many of the modern tools can also be grafted onto the old tools. Not just CNC conversions but the biggest productivity boost when I worked in a shop was converting everything to a zero point clamping system.
Seriously though, of course you can make a living with old tools - however, even the village metal workshop around here has at least one big-ass laser cutter and a CNC mill next to all their old(er) lathes, mills, brakes, presses and other toys. Many oldschool fabricators I spoke to over the last few years are quite interested in what laser welding brings/will bring to the table. Basically all smaller fabrication companies I've seen (the long tail of the car industry and other bigger industries, mostly) are continually upgrading their infrastructure with all sorts of robots and other automation widgets. And so on.
It's work that you don't need to do and that you won't get paid for. If the old machine breaks, then maybe it would make sense to move the job to something newer.
I used to work with someone whose entire business was retrofitting old machine tools with modern controllers when the decades-old electronics failed. You'd be amazed how much of this stuff is still out there.
btw: I think I have a reasonably solid idea of a range of fabrication environments, the oldest piece of machinery I'm responsible for in my professional life is about 70 years old (its basic design is decades older) and some of my personal stuff (sewing machines, mostly) is more than 100 years old. I'm really not against using what works at all.
The other possibility is the tool isn't used much and modern accountants would never allow you to buy it in the first place because of all the cash tied up. (that is the work the tool did over those 50 years wasn't enough to pay for the cost of the tool and the space to store it)
My students are shocked (horrified?) to learn that they're basically running 50-yr old Fortran code when they use scipy.minimize to train their fancy little neural nets.
I tried out most of the scripting languages out there (Ruby, Perl, Tcl, Groovy, R, and many more) and Python just seemed to click more and it has a whole lot less to worry about upfront than languages like C# and Java. In comparison to languages like C and C++, it's a godsend for those with typical automation needs.
In my eyes it seems like a pretty straightforward development. There have been plenty of other tools that may have made sense throughout history too. Matlab could have done this, but by that time nobody was going to build out massive libraries for something expensive and partly closed off.
A lot of numerical optimization code is this - it conforms to a strict 'C' ABI - taking (arrays of) simple floats and ints and outputting the same, so binding it to another higher level language is trivial, so rewriting it makes little sense. If the same algorithm were written in Java, most people would not want to bring in Java as a dependency for their Python/C++/whatever project, but since this is just a tiny C object file, it's happily integrated into everything.
They also tend to be very tricky to get right, I remember reading a paper where the author was adamant that changing the order of a multiply and an add (a mathematically invariant operation) would cause the algorithm to blow up due to the different scales of floating point values involved causing a major loss of precision. I'm sure there's tons of stories like this.
This is the sort of code which took PhD's who studied this exact topic years to get right, even though the actual code often looks unassuming, I would dread the day when I was required to touch it (but I never do - since it always does what it says on the tin)
You are thinking of real numbers, for example as all Cauchy sequences with fractions for coefficients. That is not what a CPU does.
I’m not even fond of Python, but I use it sometimes because things exist for it to use and because there are lots of developers around who can share the work on the code. If I write something in R, APL, Julia, OCaml, Forth, Scheme, or Lisp at work I’m going to be the only maintainer and will probably get a stern lecture about that. If I use Perl, Ruby, Java, or PHP, there are a few more people but it’d better be code only my team has to maintain. Go, Rust, C, C++, TypeScript, maybe JavaScript, and Python are safe in most of the company’s codebases but only C, C++, or Rust for the code that needs the most performance and the most stability of resource use.
Moreover, to the extent that they care about the “best” (or at least “better” within the scope of options with suitable ecosystems) language, “best”/“better” is highly subjective and shaped very much by familiarity
Then the whole ecosystem that Python has nowadays was built on NumPy, and sending data from one library to another was trivial because of it.
That's it.
Funny how it’s getting its time in the sun now.
You're setting your students up for failure if this is how you are teaching neural networks to them. You should switch to pytorch or at least something like tensorflow or jax or you are actively doing intellectual disservice to them and leading them to be actively noncompetitive both in AI academic paper writing/grad school and in the job market.
Similarly, use of sklearn considered harmful in a world where CuML/CuPY/Nvidia RAPIDS exists.
And also, knowledge of conda/pip/poetry considered harmful in a world where UV exists.
Teach MODERN tools please.
In 2030, pytorch and uv will be so 2025.
It's like when someone wants to choose a brand new web framework that isn't battle tested over one of the most battle tested web frameworks. You can hire way more developers with battle tested tooling, than some bleeding edge thing you don't know if it can even scale.
There's a crucial difference!
You can hire expensive developers on battle tested tooling... or you can hire a shit ton of juniors that want to work on $BUZZWORD for cheap in exchange for the CV creds of "worked on $BUZZWORD".
Resume Driven Development...
You made me laugh
But then I've got a few years to reach 50. Perhaps my views will change.
The other thing about gear cutting is that hobs only cut one size/profile of tooth. Some of the cutting tools I was using dated from before WW1, for odd sizes that didn't get used much.
Well, perhaps the long term solution is to rework it and start to use more common sizes. Standardization is a good thing in the long run.
The business software I have to work with from the 80s is a straight up nightmare. And I'd say most old software is in this camp.
This is the whole idea of industrialization - moving away from having skilled artisans, into machines that encode the skill to reproduce the article.
The fact that machines that are 50 yrs old are still in operation is quite a feat but also an indication that the production methods remained static (of course, if the production machines are good enough already, then investment into new machines don't bring in new profits).
> The thing is, those 50 yr old machine tools might be still good, but the more recent CNC machines are much more efficient, and require way less manual dexterity to use (say, compared to a lathe).
I assume you are referring to manual operated machinery vs CNC machinery? Otherwise there is little to no efficiency gained from a new CNC machine. I've run both and the setup of a CNC for simple jobs that can be done on a manual isn't worth the effort. CNC's really shine at high production and very complex parts.
> The fact that machines that are 50 yrs old are still in operation is quite a feat but also an indication that the production methods remained static
If the requirements haven't changed, e.g. machining flanges that meet ASME B16.5, and the production methods are already optimized, why even bring this up?
> (of course, if the production machines are good enough already, then investment into new machines don't bring in new profits).
Right. If the specs didn't change then why bother investing in pointless upgrades?
The ONLY reason companies toss out machinery: it's no longer useful to the company, or so hopelessly broken that it cant be fixed. And there is very little that can render a machine scrap unless something catastrophic happened. And there is very little preventing old machinery from being retrofitted with new controls.
My dad ran a job shop focused on small jobs and the economics are different.
A lot of his work was keeping other local shops / industrial equipment up and running. So there is a lot of variety of work but very low throughput and kind of by deffintion you have the capabilities to fix your own machines.
Programing a CNC machine makes it east to make a lot of the same part but if you only need one it may be quicker to just knock it out manually.
A 50 year old mill or lathe is easy to keep up and running, can be upgraded with a Digital readout or even CNC controls if desired. A tool in a shop like this likely won't see the cycles one on a factory floor constant uses sees but may be worth keeping around since it offers a unique capability...he had a large ww ii surplus lathe for jobs that wouldn't fit on the smaller more modern machines for example.
It's all fun and games when everything (your trains, your new bridges, your manufacturing process) is the brand new cool version. I went through that cycle (starting family, brand new house, new cars, new boat, high paying tech job working on early 2000s cutting edge tech). Our house was the cool house for a bit. Then is was just another house. Then is became a burden with maintenance expenses on top of the mortgage. I became a grey beard with legacy tech skills.
For China, what happens when things settle more? The market flushes out half the companies making the tools (there's tons of companies during the 'fill out' cycle, but at some point that slows/industry consolidates), or new product lines replace the old, now your factory is on borrowed time until the machines break down, you aren't the new hyped cool kid (I'm talking about you USA as a country/Ruby on Rail devs/Angular devs). Like with a new home, slowly your mortgage gets supplemented with appliance repair bills and other maintenance, what was cool and new is outdated and replaced with 'better'. China is doing good with robots, but what happens next gen when roboto/AI interaction is native built in. Does China scrap their entire 2025 robot infra and replace it with 2030s? Or does someone else gain the advantage of not having those 'legacy' slower to retool, slower volume Chinese 2025 robots/infra?
It's wild how smart people don't seem to understand basic cycles anymore. China is in a growth cycle and everyone is going to their 'new home party' and saying man this is all great (it is awesome. It is amazing how China went from poverty to current success, so many improved lives I love it) and we are acting like this is the first time someone bought a new home ever and the home will always be perfect and new and cutting edge.
Let's just celebrate that so much poverty and suffering has been eliminated in China, and wish them well and continued improvements especially as they transition from the generations that suffered to their newer generations without all that trama. That is also tricky to navigate for a society as life expectations become wildly different.
<rant> speaking of ai, there was a startup acquired by google in 2017, whose core features remain unchanged. however, their sdk and branding got switched around every 18 months or so. incredibly annoying how you cannot run the same code anymore despite having the libraries cached because of the cloud and its moody deprecation cycles.
recently had a similar situation with azure and their (yet another) copilot rebranding had existing work being phased out by the end of the year, when the actual sdk did not get changed besides the package name! </rant>
having said that i have come to appreciate things that were well-designed and lasted that long. change is not bad, but only when it is not just for the sake of it.
Or keep changing those tools to better fit the job.
Progress continues with continual process improvements.
There's a sort of collective ADHD where we as a culture or economy collectively chase the latest shiny bauble in the hopes of getting rich without having to expend any effort. It often ends badly for the economy and then we go through a phase where we collectively are forced to slow down and reflect on our mistakes vowing not to repeat them... only to do so a decade or two later. The older you get, the more you notice this pattern. We did it in 2000 with the dotcom implosion and then again in 08 with housing and shady mortgages. This time it's overbuilding AI; putting way too much capital into infrastructure that has short useful lifetime.
There's also a element of lost collective memory via generational change providing a new supply of optimists.
The only way "number goes up" capitalism continues to work is with planned obsolescence and things that need to be replaced regularly. This is a feature of the system, not a flaw. Nvidia (and all of their investors) love the fact that the stuff they make now will be outdated or broken in a few years.
If things last forever and never need to be replaced the only way to continue to increase profits is to have more people buying them. And global population appears to be peaking, at least in western countries, so that's not going to happen.
Is it sustainable? Probably not. But everyone seems to have their heads buried in the sand at the obvious dangers of what we're running into.
Rapid innovation by definition comes with rapid changes. Rapid changes does not always mean it is planned obsolescence or just poor quality.
In 1975( 50 years ago when the tooling you cite was built), nobody would want to fly in 20 year or 10 year old aircraft, today we don't care how old the air-frame we fly are.
The best recent example is Smartphones, early 2010s everyone updated their phones almost every year standing around the block on release. Today it is maybe once 3-4 years, there is very little reason to. The incremental changes are not meaningful and devices have become lot more reliable and rugged and of course expensive.
We do value quality if features are not going to improve much.
Given the DC-3 is still(!) in service, and there were surely a ton more of them flying in 1975 than today, I'm not sure that's true. And that's far from the only example of a more-than-10-years-old-in-1975 aircraft that was certainly still in wide use in 1975.
Any big shift around then was probably because of the development of high-bypass turbofan jet engines. Not so much driven by "old airframes seem risky" as "pre-high-bypass jet engines are enough more-expensive to operate that airlines will abandon them rapidly". Those engines went into wide use in the 1970s (developed in the '60s). We (demonstrably) had "reliable, long-lived airframe" figured out by the '30s, with some refinement through the '40s but nothing that rendered those '30s models necessarily obsolete (see again: the DC-3, a 1936 design). More-efficient subsonic jet engines were what caused turn-over in a certain segment of the market in the '70s, not so much "I won't trust an old airframe".
The point was not on any specific technical or economic factor. It was to illustrate that rapid evolution in comfort, or speed and also safety[1] means people will prefer adoption of newer tech quickly and not be concerned about longevity and actively devalue slightly older products.
When the improvements start becoming marginal only then longevity start to matter. The planes developed from 90s to now have lot to offer operators but not much new[2] to passengers, we are still designing(not just operating) new 737 variants after all. Most people cannot tell the age of the plane if the cabin has been refreshed.
This preference for newer generation of tools has little to do with previous generations having different values as nostalgically some like to ascribe to, but simply to technology maturity was my point.
---
[0] As impressive the 100 year history and the longevity of a pre-war design has been. We have to keep in mind the dynamics of unpressurized plane operating at less than 300 knots with a service ceiling of less than 25,000 feet is hardly comparable to that of any modern passenger aircraft cruising at 0.90+ mach for 12-15+ hours daily at 37,000 feet going through tens of thousands pressurization cycles.
[1] Airframes perhaps were not a popular safety concern directly, pressurized and reduced noise in cabins were major selling points.
Air safety regulations were famously said to be written in blood. It is undeniable that was massive drop in fatalities in 80-90s from 60-70s after safety became concern and everyone held both operators and manufacturers accountable.
[2] Improved range or better engine reliability that meant we can do longer ETOS on twin engine etc do benefit passengers indirectly.
I am reminded of some of the very finest semiconductor plants. Where parts could in theory be swapped out and replaced, but to do so would break everything. Mirrors aligned to sub-nanometre precision. Lasers and optics where picoseconds matter. Where parts are effectively custom-tuned for this machine only, allied with all these other parts also custom-tuned for this machine only. The US has a challenge on its hands to develop within the US everything and everyone needed to simply getting these systems actually working.
To be clear in both cases upgrades and maintainability would be possible but requires concerted effort to modernize with a long term mindset
If a company gets to AGI a month later, why does that matter so much?
We’re not talking super intelligence here, just human level intelligence.
OpenAI was first to ChatGPT yet other companies are still in the game.
1. The first company to get AGI will likely have a multitude of high-leverage problems it would immediately put AGI to task on
2. One of those problems is simply improving itself. Another is securing that company's lead over its competitors (by basically helping every employee at that company do better at their job)
3. The company that reaches AGI for a language-style model will likely do so due to a mix of architectural tricks that can be applied to any general-purpose model, including chip design, tactical intelligence, persuasion, beating the stock market, etc
These things are being commoditized, and we are still at the start of the curve when it comes to hardware, data centers, etc.
Arguing for an all-in civilization/country bet on AGI given this premise, is either foolish or a sign that you are selling "AGI"
AGI is not super intelligence.
Perhaps it's semantics, but I'd say AGI is around the average human intelligence, not extreme outliers like mediocre AI researchers.
GPT-5 required less compute to train than GPT-4.5. Data, RL, architectural improvements, etc. all contribute to the rate of improvement we're seeing now.
Computer science hubris at its finest.
The same arguments are always brought up, often short pithy one-liners without much clarification. It seems silly that despite this argument first emerging when LLM's could barely write functional code, now that LLM's have reached gold-medal performance on the IMO, it is still being made with little interrogation into its potential faults, or clarification on the precise boundary of intelligence LLM's will never be able to cross.
>Proof: I took a convex optimization paper with a clean open problem in it and asked gpt-5-pro to work on it. It proved a better bound than what is in the paper, and I checked the proof it's correct.
https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/1958198661139009862
(please excuse the x link)
It needs to learn new information, create novel connections, be creative.. We are utterly clueless as to how the brain works and how intelligence is created.
We just took one cell, a neuron, made the simplest possible model of it, made some copies of it and you think it will suddenly spark into life by throwing GPUs at it ?
LLM's can do all those things
Any novel connections are through randomness, hence hallucinations instead of useful connections with background knowledge of involved systems or concepts.
About creativity, see my previous point. If I spit out words that go next to eachother, it won't be creativity. Creativity implies a goal, a purpose, or sometimes by chance, but utilising systematic thinking with understanding of the world.
I feel that many people who deny the current utility and abilities of large-language models will continue to do so far after they've exceeded human intelligence, because the perception that they are fundamentally limited, regardless of whether they actually are or if their criticisms make any sense, is necessary for some load-bearing part of their sanity.
I am denying that they are intelligent, or that by scaling them / upgrading them they will suddenly spring to life and become AGI.
There are far more signals that AGI is going to be achieved by OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind or X.ai within the next 5-10 years than there were of any other hyped breakthrough in the past 100 years that ultimately never came to fruition. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen, but to ignore the multitude of trends which show no signs of stopping, it seems naive in Anno Domani 2025 to discount it as a likely possibility.
And as the internet deteriorates due to AI slop, finding good training material will become increasingly difficult. It's already happening that incorrect AI generated information is being cited as source for new AI answers.
I'm sure most companies have understood the "AI outputs feeding AI's" incest issue for a while and have many methods to avoiding it. That's why so much has been put into synthetic data pipelines for years.
So agi before autonomous tesla? "Just two more years guys I promise", how can people keep falling for these lol
If you want to hand-wave that away by stating that any company with technology capable of achieving AGI would guard it as the most valuable trade secret in history, then fine. Even if we assume that AGI-capable technology exists in secret somewhere, I've seen no credible explanation from any organization on how they plan to control an AGI and reliably convince it to produce useful work (rather than the AGI just turning into a real-life SHODAN). An uncontrollable AGI would be, at best, functionally useless.
AGI is --- and for the foreseeable future, will continue to be --- science fiction.
The second is a significant open problem (the alignment problem) and I'd wager it is a very real risk which companies need to take more seriously. However, whether it would be feasible to control or direct an AGI towards reliably safe, useful outputs has no bearing on whether reaching AGI is possible via current methods. Current scaling gains and the rate of improvement (see METR's horizons on work an AI model can do reliably on its own) make it fairly plausible, at least more plausible than the plain denial that AGI is possible I see around here with very little evidence.
is the assertion I am referring to; you do a lot of handwaving to assume that AGI is achievable.
The new superpowers will be the EU, which was smart enough not to make the same gamble, and China, which will structurally survive it.
See here for all the rights it grants you: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/i...
I started, grew, and exited a modern manufacturing-based business, and I can confirm that almost everything about modern capitalism in this cycle is biased -against- any business that manufactures in 1st world economies. The business, Spoonflower, was and is an innovative marketplace of textile design, mated to on-demand manufacture, and had factories in Durham NC and Berlin Germany.
Three factors made this very difficult:
-- raising funding or debt to support old-fashioned capital equipment. Building factories was once the backbone of the US economy but is now pretty close to impossible for an entrepreneur. Raising money to write software is straightforward and well understood. Raising money to purchase industrial equipment the size of a city bus is not what our startup economy is optimized for, or even understands or has models for. Confusion about this is nearly universal.
-- operating a labor-intensive (anything where the largest component of cost is the labor component) manufactory. As others have noted, making stuff is physically demanding. Some people love hard work, but culturally this is rare. If you are crazy successful, the reward is another shift of harder, potentially more efficient work.
-- exiting investors / providing ROI. Our business fit in two categories: creative digital marketplaces (Ebay, Etsy...) valued at 4-6x revenue, or makers like Cimpress or Shutterfly at .5 to 1x revenue. Who buys factories.... even really interesting ones? The short answer: only those that already own factories. When you have a very short list of potential acquisitors, its hard to create an auction market for your equity.
In general, we did okay. But every step from launch to growth to exit felt very much like swimming into a strong current. The same very hard working and resourceful group of colleagues could have done anything. I'm proud of the work, but a lot of that pride is sheer contrariness at having executed on something so unlikely and having survived.
This would be much harder now.
Sourcing is harder. Friends working in the space now rely on a global sourcing network just as we did, that is in utter disarray. Operating on thin margins with a factory that must be fed raw materials to make money is terrifying on a normal day. These days the threat to supply chains is existential.
Launching consumer brands is harder. As has been widely noted, access to the top of the funnel has now been fully monetized (or fully enshittified) by Google, Facebook etc, and because of AI, that funnel now shrinks. Something will break loose here, but nothing has yet.
A post-pandemic employment environment is even more difficult for manufacturers. I think it is safe to say that demand for jobs that require 8-12 hours of physically demanding work surrounded by colleagues and industrial machinery is at an all time low.
I spent 15 years in service to a vision of domestic making, and while we were not defeated, I understand deeply the uphill battle any manufacturing entrepreneur faces.
No, it's not.
It's actually because China is lowring the requirement/quality for delivery and makes everthing for the comsumer market to degrade rapidly so that the manufacturers has the chance to involve because of the involving needs for newer/better products.
It is a common sense here in China that a lot of manufactural products have better quality from imported sources, it is the growing needs from the comsumers that require products to have newer/more functionality even if it has shorter lifetime, or event 'better', the product is looking for growth so they are designed to be short lifetime so the manufacturer and the customer both willing to upgrade in the future.
Excuse my language/grammer.
If you are as far ahead in manufacturing as China is, of course you can dictate the terms of competition and they want to increase consumption. I have zero doubt that this is anything but a deliberate choice, which could be altered by Chinese manufacturers if wanted to.
The myth of incompetent Chinese engineering and manufacturing is just that. And believing in it puts you in a dangerous place, where some day some Chinese company can do everything you can for half the price, which has happened again and again.
Can you name a few items that you feel that way?
My impression as a consumer is that everything comes from China nowadays, even the reliable brands. The main difference I think is the time spend around product design and fine tuning the manufacturer's process. Think about it, there's a reason why they have to make it very visible that the product is "designed with love in colorado" when all the manufacturing jobs are in China.
Isn't the requirements set by the company outsourcing to China? Because as far as I can tell in China you can produce with all ranges of quality so it feels a bit too simplistic to blame "planned obsolescence" to China alone as the whole chain profits from it (besides the end-user of-course).
The AI crash will be a catalyst for general instability and chaos with a fascist at the helm.
I don't really know what the lesson here is.
Also, I was born in that factory town and I'm currently writing this in Shanghai, where I'm trying to relocate to in hopes of better career/entrepreneurial opportunities lmao. The world is funny sometimes.
As for mechanical engineer many things that are puzzling to average engineer are easy to understand / recreate by mechanical engineer, especially in 3d printing era
Using LLMs to generate texts for inefficient communication (to other humans or machines) is just so wrong.
A lot of younger people it seems like value flexibility over higher pay. They’d rather work casual jobs that are dead ends. At the factory you start with a decent wage and benefits and within a year you’re promoted and salary increases noticeably. If you can put 5 responsible years in you’re certainly recruited to the management development path. These skills are highly transferable between companies.
Here’s a start: daily pay (there are a bunch of fintechs out there that will do this for you). My buddy who does construction does this. It filters out people who need a quick fix of cash on day 1 instead of wasting two weeks on them.
View labour unions as a friend, not an enemy, who will figure out where to get more workers and how to keep them willing to show up to the job.
There’s plenty of college educated people that are unemployed that refuse to enter this kind of work even though they’d quickly rise and make a lot of money. The other group is without any aim in their lives and can only plan a week or 2 out.
The workers that do reliably show up want nothing to do with unions because they are already compensated as well or better than a union could bargain for. It’s a workers market. Unions only work when it’s not as they exist to artificially limit the labor pool.
Industries in the US are at an inflection point, with govt / global market giving conflicting signals. For example car manufacturers need to decide whether to invest in EVs, which is a huge capital investment they won't see return on for maybe a decade. If they dont invest, they won't be relevant outside the few markets clinging religiously to ICEs
Do you layout a billion dollars to try to stay relevant outside the US? Or stick to reliable, if soon shrinking, domestic internal combustion engine business model?[1]
Contrast this with AI where signals are unambiguous from government and investors.
1 - As an example, this $1.6B charge GM is taking https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-14/gm-to-tak...
People have been saying this for 20 years, and it seems plausible, but it hasn't really worked out (so far).
We used to talk about AI as having no moat (easy for other players to accomplish similar AI achievements). China has made that clear. Some open weight LLMs are fine and can run on laptops. It seems the new moat is model parameter size and VRAM requirements. I would bet on innovation in hardware or disruptive algorithms changing that game so better LLMs can run on more personal computers. Remember how bitcoin miners all used GPUs then ASICs came along and made that no longer profitable?
There are many ways the AI industry can be disrupted which makes it that much more volatile.
OTOH it seems like mere single billions can buy control over the US if you're brazen enough, so perhaps these stock market suckers are overpaying with their trillions.
I wonder how expensive it would be to buy control of PRC in a similarly creative (but very different) way.
It gives me the chills, thinking about when it has 1000x cheaper ~GPU compute.
If you can get a GPT5 level AI, locally and privately, for just the cost of electricity, why would you bother with anything else? If it can’t do something, you’d just outsource that one prompt to a cloud based AI.
The vast majority of your prompts will be passing through a local LLM first in 2035, and you might rarely need to touch an agent API. So what does that mean for the AI industry?
RAM Price per GB Projected to decline at 15% per annum.
That's quite a few years before you'll get double the RAM.
For mobile I'm guessing power constraints matter too.
This is classic jevon's paradox. As efficiency increases so does demand.
It's a race to the the most powerful and transformative technology in history.
Or it might all collapse like a house of cards. But worth a shot.
Worth betting the entire US economy on it?
Huge bets were made on the Internet technology in the US and it paid off even with the dot com bubble bursting.
If we don't stay on top of technology then we will simply be passed by China.
People also said the Internet was going revolutionize everything in the 90s and it did. AI is already pretty impressive and we are just in the infancy of the technology.
But they are obviously rocketing ahead in energy capacity, which will be the real bottleneck as data centers continue to scale.
A solution could be competition locally by a more efficient implementations. There might also be push back by local populations if it causes energy prices to rise.
What do you mean by infancy? AI research exists for at least 50 years, longer than web development.
Of course the hardware can probably be repurposed towards crypto mining afterwards, so hey!
Is it going to be as world upending as some folk were making it out to be? I'm not sold on that yet.
That also depends on the budget. I work in the public sector, so there's usually no money, but now they've just discovered that they have a 25 million budget, which needs to be spend this year on hardware (for AI). If we do not spend the money within this year, the budget expires and then we cannot spend it at all
25 million is not billions, but that could still be a higher budget than any other public institution agency in the entire state here has
"Ford CEO Jim Farley said Chinese cars have "far superior" technology, lower costs and great quality."
Ford is working on fixing this and getting a $30,000 EV out the door.[2]
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/764318/ford-ceo-china-evs-humbled...
https://www.ft.com/content/096e883a-7dea-48a9-bbb3-72f4e79e7...
The narrative claims that AI will make everyone far more productive, but in reality, I see people working harder than ever and burning out while maintaining this slop in production.
AI search and summarization have been a flop, and most people I know hate them. LLMs are undoubtedly useful, but despite all the supposed productivity gains, I’m not seeing any measurable impact. I used to spend hours reviewing human-written PRs, and now I spend even more time because of lazy AI-generated garbage creeping into the codebase.
Some AI parrots will say, “Oh, I never push code I don’t understand,” but that doesn’t stop others from doing it, and now you have to be extra vigilant during PR reviews.
The gist is that everyone claims to be more productive, but the numbers say otherwise. Even so, LLMs are genuinely useful, just not nearly as much as the investment would suggest.
source: visit any Chinese tier 1 city (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen) and it will blow your mind if you've only lived in the West.
And if you haven't visited, for example this is tier 1 China: cashless society, amazing public transportation, clean streets, no homeless, practically zero crime, drone food delivery (in Shenzhen, certain spots only), high-speed rail to every major city in China (and even to smaller tier-2, tier-3 cities), wonderful infrastructure that gets built in years (vs decades in the West), extensive subway systems with protective barriers at every single station (so you can't suicide or push someone on the tracks) etc.
The latter probably will never happen in the US.
[1] https://youtu.be/VPjODKUxV5g (22:05)
Beijing to Shanghai is roughly the same distance as Chicago to New York City. Travel time via train is 4.5 hours vs 22 hours.
Boston to New York is almost 4 hours on the Acela!
The US regressed on this heavily in the last generation.
https://www.consumershield.com/articles/murder-rate-by-year
I don't trust the statistics for lesser crimes because so many of the victims never file a report. In many cities the police now subtly discourage people from filing reports because they don't want to deal with the paperwork or have their statistics look bad. But I think we can generally use the murder rate as a proxy for the overall level of criminality.
I watched it start in the downtown area and then spread into residential neighborhoods, and the homeless/criminal element become more physically aggressive too. "Public Intoxication" also increased except instead of drunks it was fentanyl users.
Car crimes similarly went from simple opening of unlocked doors, to smashing of windows to grab bags or cutting out catalytic converters.
Public transit went from bearable to unusable (though this might be better now, I don't have firsthand knowledge anymore since I stopped using it during the decline).
Cash is still pretty common there and definitely can't go cashless (nor would I personally like to), and there's no delivery drones that I'm aware of (I also don't particularly care for that, personally).
I'm not even sure it's that they're ahead, I think we've just fallen behind in a lot of those cases.
In China it's even better, even street vendor use QR payment.
Even within the US a lot of upper class people don't know what it's like for lower class people here. It's so easy to slip into homelessness because there aren't reasonable options available to many people to live anymore.
In China they still have a huge amount of their population in a developing stage so they still have ample tools and options and knowledge for how to maintain a reasonable life in a less developed state. So it's easier to fall back to a cheaper lifestyle, and culturally it's easier too.
But in the US were generations removed from these other ways of life, so there's no options or cultural acceptance of not living a highly developed way of life. So people just go straight from a nice house or apartment with modern stuff to being homeless with little to no tools to survive.
Just my probably naive thoughts. Would love to hear others takes on this.
I've seen in thailand, how even the poorest can just build a small hut on a piece of land they own and actually live in it. You'd be risking jail time if you did that in the US.
First, that it's not just that people "don't know how to live more simply", and thus cling to their homes too long when they "should" otherwise be downsizing and cutting expenses. For a lot of people, the fall is sudden—some medical emergency drains all their savings and leaves them unable to work (at least for a time), and there it goes.
Second, what are they going to downsize to? We don't have whole rural villages in the US that are living, essentially, pre-industrialized lives (except with the Amish, I suppose, but that's a whole other kettle of fish). (Also, I don't know for sure that such places exist today in China—I know that they did not too many years ago, but my information is not current.) There isn't really anywhere you can go in the US to live securely, but simply, on $100 a month or whatever. And even if there were, that would involve leaving whatever job you had to begin with, which removes the "securely" part.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-austin-homeless-camp-drawin...
With no cash, the citizen passport and the GFW, the dictatorship has total control of society. It's not that there are no homeless, is that they are pushed to even worse conditions, out of sight. It's not that there is zero crime, it's that the crime is from the state, the mafia, and there is a lot of corruption. But nobody can talk about it because there is no free press.
I do think it's important to state how much China is advancing, and surpassing the West, because they are going to rule the world as the Americans did, soon.
But let's not pretend it's some kind of utopia.
Also the fact the population is so huge make it hard even for such a powerful state to grasp it all.
But regular citizen flexibility when something is not state-approved in advance is very limited compared to ours. The state can limit where they can move because of the citizen passport, limit what they can buy (and say) because of wechat, limit what they can see and know because of the GFW, limit how much you can be anonymous because big cities have cameras everywhere, coupled with AI tracking.
In Europe, if my government does something I don't like, I can pay in cash, or cross a border and do it in a different country. I can complain on the internet and find like-minded people to organize, advice, help...
I want to go to a gay bar and pay without having a record of it? I can. I want to finance an art or political project that the government would not like? I can.
In fact, anywhere in the world there is cash, and I have some secure cash stash, I can pay if I lost my phone, or with no battery. I can pay if my bank account is blocked by the bank. If it's in the red. If there is an outage on their app. I can pay if I've been robbed of my wallet and phone. I can pay if there is no electricity or no internet. I can even pay if war is declared, if I'm under bombs. I can buy illegal drugs, illegal plant seeds, illegal literature, and illegal human services.
Remember when visa prevented us to send money to wikileak? It was not illegal to do so in my country, and it was my money, but they just said no. Yet I could pay in Bitcoin, that I could buy with cash.
No-cash societies make everything easier when everything goes according to plan. When you fit in the box, and the box is not broken. It's why it feels so great, because day-to-day life is mostly this, for most people.
But the lack of alternatives will make you feel helpless the day you really need it. Cashless has never been about convenience, it's about deleting those annoying grey areas, inch by inch. It's about control.
It's not a new thing for China. The first time I went there, I was 17 years old, and there was no internet. So the state appointed us a state guide, and she was following us everywhere during the whole time, to make sure "we were safe".
Now China doesn't need to do that anymore. They know everything you do at any moment except in the remote countryside. And they can push a button if they want to stop you.
I find this one most interesting. In London for example this is brought up all the time. There is always an excuse (cost, platform length, trains can't stop at the same spot etc etc) and we accept ~100 suicide attempts per year not to mention various accidents. There's the immediate human cost, the PTSD for first emergency workers + the disruption to public transport.
If we can't invest in simple things that would make a meaningful difference how do we expect to match those big infrastructure projects? Crossrail is fantastic but was delayed many years. HS2 is beyond a joke.
While I can’t speak directly to this, but from watching The China Show on YouTube, the tradeoff to the amazing amenities is that the personal-injury risk from failing infrastructure has been fatal, but covered up by their propaganda. Anyone on the receiving end of it, will deal with devastating consequences, if not fatal.
Infrastructure and manufacturing corners are cut in ways that look great, but literally kill their population and tourists.
Building foundations are not thick enough, buildings aren’t built to proper fire safety standards, underground pipes leak, leading to roads constantly failing, high rises burn down, sewage pipes literally blow up due to methane build up like someone detonated a bomb.
Drainage grates are fake and flooding cities, drowning people in vehicles, while the QA of car battery manufacturing is causing electric fleets of cars in parking lots to burn.
And the aforementioned occurrences are happening in tier1 cities.
I sound hyperbolic, but China is great at quickly cleaning up and quickly rebuilding, so it doesn’t seem nearly as bad as it does.
Once I learned about the infrastructure, I realized my cousin’s business trip accident in China was not a randomly rare accident.
He broke his back in China when his rental car’s front wheel popped off the car.
Chances are most folks are fine if they go. But I would be very weary, because the probability of a disaster is not nearly as high as it ought to be.
I've seen a lot of grumbling on this site about why the U.S. doesn't have access to cheap EVs like China, but it's almost entirely because the cheap EVs that China is pumping out aren't even close to being up to the U.S.'s stringent safety standards.
Eventually they will be safe enough, and they will also be more expensive.
The fact that the FBI, which is institutionally highly defended, feels the need to spend money and effort on stopping falling debris, tells you something about how accountable government agencies are.
And even Seoul or Tokyo, depending on your metric, probably fails compared to some European cities (Dutch, Scandinavian, etc)
Comparing to US cities feels weird. Because they don't got much going on for them anyway, except diverse culture and vibrant businesses
Even any Russian cities are way ahead of US counterparts. Places like Kensington avenue or NYC subway are unimaginable in major cities there.
"Slower growth: Despite the record output, some analyses reported that the overall growth of U.S. manufacturing output was modest, at just 1% in 2024. This reflected a lag between announced investments and new operational capacity coming online."
So record output, but practically zero growth.
nashashmi•3mo ago
pengaru•3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CottonopolisCropped.jpg