a relabeling job or what? [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Frank Hagan

07-30-2006, 2:42 PM

The Woodcraft flyer I got yesterday had the Jet prominently displayed for 399.99 on the cover. Further into the flyer was the Tormek for...399.99 but it includes a free knife jig and stone grader. To be fair, the Jet does say it comes with a free 2 drawer base, support arm extension and cover. I'm not in the market for either one at this point, just thought that it was odd both were in there at the same price. Jim.

I think the price will come down on the Jet. I'm surprised they are coming out at the same price, to be honest. I'll make a prediction that they will come out 10% lower than the Tormek, and then drop to somewhere between 15 - 20% lower in order to sell them. At the same price, I don't see any reason to try the Chinese knock-off. Now, at $329 ... they will get quite a few buyers.

I think the Tormek is overpriced, so I hope they decide to compete in the market.

Mike Wenzloff

07-30-2006, 3:01 PM

I think the Tormek is overpriced, so I hope they decide to compete in the market.
Perhaps. But I can think American made cars are over priced. I can hope they will build as good as a car as some of the imports, for the same or lower price. I think my hope would be misplaced.

I really think the idea of catorgorizing tools as over priced is silly. What does "over priced" mean? I suspect it means different things to different people.

I think for any company to have sustainable profit and not build throw-away tools, well, they are going to cost more. Paying someone more than a dollar a day to work for them, print quality instructional manuals, ad infintum, does and will continue to have a cost.

So if a competitor comes out with a knock-off and chooses to save money by cutting corners and produce their tools in a country with sub-standard wages--and hence make an even greater profit when selling for at or slightly below the originator--well, all too often the original maker follows suit in order to compete. This eventually hurst us as users of tools.

The real question isn't that the Tormek costs too much, it should be why does Jet want to make so much?

Well, this thread may now go away...

Take care, Mike

Mike Henderson

07-30-2006, 4:18 PM

So if a competitor comes out with a knock-off and chooses to save money by cutting corners and produce their tools in a country with sub-standard wages--and hence make an even greater profit when selling for at or slightly below the originator--well, all too often the original maker follows suit in order to compete. This eventually hurst us as users of tools.
I don't see how this would hurt us as users of tools - I think it would help us as users of tools. Competition drives prices lower and quality higher. If a manufacturer builds in China to get lower wage costs (for example), can produce a product with an acceptable quality level, and sells the product for much less than the original manufacturer, that benefits all of the people who buy the product. It's the WallMart effect.

Mike

Per Swenson

07-30-2006, 4:39 PM

Mike Wenzloff

07-30-2006, 4:58 PM

I agree with Per. There is no real upside in today's economy for farming our jobs oversees.

The effect is a cheapening of products. We are continuing a throw-away society and its getting worse.

Many here like old iron. In part because of philosophical reasons. But in part, maybe a great part, due to the higher quality of the past. This quality is not something which Walmart will ever produce. Nor Jet. Nor Powermatic.

The lessons of our recent past is that once tools are made in China, they simply do not get better. Nor stay the same as previously to outsourcing overseas. They get cheapened. Planned obsolesence is an fairly recent idea in the scheme of history.

Competion based upon true innovation helps industry and hence the consumer. Compeition because one can get labor for dollars a day does not and has not.

At one time Japanese vehicles were a joke. Labor was cheap, labor was relatively unskilled. That has changed in the past 50 years. But the society itself was always historically quality minded. An oppressed work force? Quality is not high on the priotity list.

Well, if this post doesn't get a warning, I don't know what will. Hate to be a thread killer.

Take care, Mike

Mike Henderson

07-30-2006, 5:07 PM

Mr Henderson,
I had to walk around the room a few times after I read this,
"Competition drives prices lower and quality higher."
and the kicker, "that benefits all of the people who buy the product. It's the WallMart effect."

In my opinion, sadly no. Competition drives the prices lower but not the
quality higher when it is unfair competition. As is in the case of china's
manufacturing. You can not compete in labor costs so the product and
services suffer. Or you do compete by manfacturing in china and
lowering your quality standards. Look at the other thread about the motor
comparisons between the Jet and tormek.

Wallmart is the downfall of western civilization.

Or should I say the homogenization of said civilization and destroyer
of small business. There is no upside to wallmart. Per

There's a good side to WallMart and a bad side. I only highlighted the good side. To discuss the bad side would be to make this thread a political discussion instead of a woodworking discussion. I certainly see the bad side of WallMart and can expound at length on the problems.

Just because something is made in China does not make it a lower quality product. The Jet may be - I don't know. However, the market will decide. If people find it to be lower quality (for the money) they won't buy it. Information about price/quality travels very quickly now.

Forty or so years ago, the same thing was said about products from Japan. Back then, many Japanese products were cheap and shoddy. But now, many Japanese products are better than those made in the US.

I've traveled to China and have a number of Chinese friends. In general, I find the Chinese to be very bright people, hard working and entrepreneurial. The fact that they work for less money (in China) than an American will work for does not mean that they produce shoddy products.

I certainly understand your frustration. But I hold to my statement. Competition does drive prices lower and quality higher. Earlier in our country's history, the competition was from domestic companies. Today it's from global companies. But the basic truth of free enterprise still holds. The consumer benefits from competition.

Mike

Per Swenson

07-30-2006, 5:18 PM

Mr Henderson,

Because this is a woodworking forum and I need to stay on topic.

I am going to refrain from this debate.

Per

Jim Becker

07-30-2006, 5:33 PM

Careful, folks... ;)

Your moderators are watching....

Mike Wenzloff

07-30-2006, 6:34 PM

There's a good side to WallMart and a bad side. I only highlighted the good side. To discuss the bad side would be to make this thread a political discussion instead of a woodworking discussion. I certainly see the bad side of WallMart and can expound at length on the problems.
...
But only discussion the good side doesn't remove the political nature--it is expounding upon the positive political nature without the balanced view negatives would bring to the table.

But it is still political.

Using Japan is a good example of how a country can begin with what use to be a joke [Made in Japan] to making things of better quality. We both used this example.

There are many distinct differences, most of which are societally and culturally based.

We can have differing views as to the short and long term impact of outsourcing to China and other countries. The short term is, I see absolutely no positives. I see no product in the history of China post industrial revolution in which a product has been reenginered to be a better product for less, unlike Japan. Only cheaper and of lesser quality.

The fact remains, service and techincal jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries, and the rate at which products are being outsourced is escalating at an alarming rate.

We as consumers are paying for this job loss in more ways than one. Cheaper, lesser quality goods is but and easy target.

Whether the Jet Tormek clone is even of comparable or servicable [whatever that really means, but it is negative] quality is not close to the point. And whether the quality improves over time, well, time will tell.

The bigger question is, will the Tormek be around when we all decide the Jet isn't worth hoey 10 years from now and it is too late to vote with our money?

Take care, Mike

And just to ease Jim's mind, I'll refrain from additional posts...

Mike Henderson

07-30-2006, 7:13 PM

Chris Barton

07-30-2006, 7:29 PM

I agree with Michael on this one. I have tried to think of what was made 50 years ago (machinery) that was better than what's available today and I couldn't come up with a single example. I was able to think of a brand of tools made largely in China that were worse 10+ years ago and are now cheaper and better, in fact better to the point of winning awards from multiple woodworking publications, including those with zero financial conflicts (advertising dollars) but, I don't think those that made the point will want to hear it... Griz. This whole "hate Asia" thing is difficult to get my head around.

Mike Wenzloff

07-30-2006, 7:45 PM

Chris, I don't hate Asia--and perhaps it is unfair to catagorize my statements as hate. Even when the word "hate" is in quotes.

It is hard to not award tools prizes in the absence of alternatives.

I know the venerable Powermatic 66's trunnion is not as beefy as it once was. That change has been made since outsourcing. Perhaps it was improperly overengineered to begin with? Perhaps not. And Baldor motors? Think they will be still on the equipment they presently are 15 years from now? They are being and have been replaced on "lower price point" equipment already. But only time will tell.

I don't think people will be rehabbing Jet drill presses and Supersaws 75 years from now and saying how wonderful they are. They will be in landfills.

Chris Barton

07-30-2006, 8:14 PM

Chris, I don't hate Asia--and perhaps it is unfair to catagorize my statements as hate. Even when the word "hate" is in quotes.

Mike W., I didn't say you used the word hate, an alternative use of quotation marks for paraphrasing is a literary convention. I do believe that there is that kind of undertone to some of the posts in this thread.

It is hard to not award tools prizes in the absence of alternatives.

Mike, I just picked up the latest table saw review in FWW, vol 184, June 06 and by my count in this comparison there were 13 entries and this list was certainly not exhaustive. I have been woodworking for over 30 years and I can't remember having that many options to chose from in 1972 when as a highschooler my dad got me my first saw (sears). So, I think this notion of there being an absence of choices is specious.

I don't think people will be rehabbing Jet drill presses and Supersaws 75 years from now and saying how wonderful they are. They will be in landfills.

And you base this believe on what evidence? I think it is easy for some to bash certain tool brands yet, I rarely see the bases of their objections. If you haven't noticed by now, I love a lively debate (the egg-head in me I guess). But, lets debate based upon tangible and objectifiable evidence, not on feelings and emotions. The latter often lead us to make decissions that we later regret.

Ken Werner

07-30-2006, 8:33 PM

Mike and Per, right on!

http://www.jibjab.com/JokeBox/JokeBox_JJOrig.aspx?movieid=122

Ken

Mike Wenzloff

07-30-2006, 9:44 PM

Chris,

Thank you for the pedantic lesson on literary convention. You probably are aware of concepts such as implication. You implied myself and perhaps Per were Asia haters. That, or you were constructing an argument from absurdity--also a literary convention.

Don't confuse a multiplicity of choice--where there are in reality only a couple factories actually making these "brands"--which free market choice. In reality, there are no more choices available today.

When I was 18, I worked as truck driver delivering materials to a factory which made trailer homes. Double-wides. There were 6 assembly lines. Each assembly line used the same materials, and depending on workload, the same mix of workers. The were branded differently, priced differently, though many were within the same ballpark, and retailed through various channels. I see the current state of woodworking machinery in the same vein.

My only basis is conjecture, guesswork. Perhaps even an educated guess if I am generous. I'll go a step further. *If* people 75 years from now are rehabbing machinery built today by the big 3 makers and thinking we are in the golden age of machinery, just think of the crude they will have to compare it to.

Again, the reality is, the stuff many here at SMC are rehabbing will still be around then. And functioning.

Take care, Mike

Cecil Arnold

07-30-2006, 10:52 PM

To get back on point, if I were going to spend $399 for one of these things, I would buy the Tormek, but as someone said, the Jet will come down in price soon (I agree with that prediction) and maybe Tormek will follow.

As to all the discussion about markets, exported jobs, ad nausea--we only have ourselves to blame. The oil market is not free when a cartel can get $75 for a barrel (42 gal.) of oil that only costs $2 to extract and sell it for $3 per gallon. Dr. W. Edwards Deming tried to convince Detroit that statistical quality control would produce better cars at a lower price, Detroit's reaction was that they could sell everything they could produce so they didn't need it. MacArthur brought Deming to Japan and in 20 years they were producing better cars and TVs than anyone else. They also bought the rights to Fax machine technology after AT&T thought they had wrung everything from it in the way of profits that they could--big surprise, the Japanese made a mint. So who's to blame. Labor didn't make those decisions, and when Honda started making cars in the USA we discovered that the UAW could make Hondas as well as Japanese auto workers. Duh?? Rant off.

Dick Strauss

07-31-2006, 12:32 AM

Ken,
I was going to post the same thing..."Oh Big Box Mart". I thought we could use a little humor!

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 12:47 AM

I don't think people will be rehabbing Jet drill presses and Supersaws 75 years from now and saying how wonderful they are. They will be in landfills.I hate for my first post here to be in this kind of thread -- I'm a complete novice woodworker who's learned an awful lot just reading these forums, and I'd rather have first chimed in with a question about something woodworking related -- but this sort of comment just raises some interesting questions from my POV.

Namely, why is buying equipment that will last 75 years a good thing? You're certainly paying for the additional engineering and manufacturing costs that allow it to be longer lived. Why?

I'm 33, and I gather that I am on the younger end of the scale when it comes to this hobby. 75 years from now I'll be 108. In the unlikely event I'm actually still around for Al Roker III to wish me happy birthday, I'm pretty sure I won't be hopping around the shop. Sure, a business can theoretically have a perpetual life, but if you're a cabinet shop planning on using your equipment for three-quarters of a century, I think you need some better capex planning.

Isn't it better to cut those costs and buy a piece of equipment with a shorter (but still long) life? Does anyone think the top of the line Powermatic table saws won't last for at least several decades of use -- essentially a lifetime for a hobbyist shop?

The market pays for the amount of engineering it needs. I can hardly begrudge the Chinese for producing well-priced goods at a quality level the market demands.

Mike Henderson

07-31-2006, 1:53 AM

Welcome to the Creek, Damien. Always glad to see someone jump in with both feet.

Mike W. and I have been communicating offline about the same subject: What is the definition of Quality and who defines it? My position is that Quality means meeting the needs of the customer, and only the customer gets to define what quality is for their purchase (how well a product meets their needs).

Customers are rational and will only purchase what they need. If they don't need a product which will last for 75 or 100 years, they won't purchase it if there's an extra cost for that extra life.

Quality is not some absolute thing - it cannot be measured like the amount of water in a cup - it can only be judged in reference to the needs of the customer.

And to get back to my original thesis, competition drives prices lower and quality higher. Competition is all about satisfying the needs of the customers.

Mike

Frank Hagan

07-31-2006, 2:07 AM

I really think the idea of catorgorizing tools as over priced is silly. What does "over priced" mean? I suspect it means different things to different people.

That's easy ... any tool I want, but haven't bought is "over-priced". ;)

Frank Hagan

07-31-2006, 2:17 AM

To get back on point, if I were going to spend $399 for one of these things, I would buy the Tormek, but as someone said, the Jet will come down in price soon (I agree with that prediction) and maybe Tormek will follow.

Part of what makes the Tormek seem expensive is a multitude of grinders that run hundreds of dollars less, and those are the only things that look like the Tormek. Quality costs, I know, but I can't help thinking that absent similar machines from competitors, there's too much room for an unreasonably high price. Now, if Jet and Grizzly and the folks at B&D all come out with models at similar prices, I may consider the Tormek a good value. If the prices fall, and Tormek remains the highest priced but 10 - 20% below where they are now, those of us who tend to buy quality will consider it a great deal and buy the Tormek.

I do find it a bit funny that this thread has devolved into an American manufacturing thread; last I heard, protecting the Tormek from competition would help no American manufacturer.

Mike Wenzloff

07-31-2006, 3:37 AM

...Mike W. and I have been communicating offline about the same subject: What is the definition of Quality and who defines it? My position is that Quality means meeting the needs of the customer, and only the customer gets to define what quality is for their purchase (how well a product meets their needs)....
Yes, we have.

Thank you for bringing private communication into the public space.

There are several logical problems with your above definition of Quality.

Try the dictionary, not sentiment. Words mean something. You can express your position without redefining words and concepts.

For one, who determines what exactly it is the customer "needs" anyway? The accountants/CFOs/marketing personell? Share holders? Having been in an engineering department, it certainly isn't the engineers who make that decision.

Is it the customers themselves? How? When is the last time any of us communicated how a major tool could be made better and they listened and changed? Companies by and large have a philosophy of building to a given pricing structure. They do what it takes to make it to that cost/profit structure. It really is pretty simple.

I understand your point, Michael. But it would be better/more accurate to say that the customer defines personal value, than quality.

Take care, Mike

Mike Wenzloff

07-31-2006, 3:51 AM

I hate for my first post here to be in this kind of thread...
Welcome Damien, no worries.

My and Michael's disagreement is more over meaning of words than where something is built. It is more philosophical than practical: The world ain't gonna change.

fyi, I pulled the concept of 75 years outta...thin air. It is about the beginning of the age of much of the machinery which is currently sought after by many on the old wood working machine sites.

If all this wrangling about of words only applied to so called hobbyists, I probably wouldn't care. But there are people who bang on the current available machinery day in day out to feed families. For many of them, this is more than a theoretical debate. Too, for the people who use to build this equipment in this country, it is a very personal issue.

For people to dismiss this as the world economy making adjustments, well, they probably haven't lost or come close to losing everything they spent years trying to build up. For them it is not theoretical. To shrug the shoulders is to diminish their very lives.

As well, shipping jobs overseas affects more than the many who have seemingly stable jobs. What was once thought to be careers are now but transitory positions. If you think at your young age it won't affect you--you may be right. But you may be wrong, too. Will your view then change? Will Michael's? If y'all are correct, then it shouldn't matter.

Anyway, debate is good. It makes the mind think.

Take care, Mike

Per Swenson

07-31-2006, 5:21 AM

One more time.

Competition will lower prices and raise quality, true,only
when the competition is fair.

Also , like the cy sims commercial you need a educated consumer.

I am not a Asian Basher.

P.

tod evans

07-31-2006, 7:50 AM

truely a better comparison of grinders would be a baldor slow speed vs the tormek......the jet offering isn`t worthy of consideration on quality alone. the tormek price wise is in line with the baldor units but offers jigs-n-fixtures that make it appealing to the hobbiest/homeowner crowd. there may be a few tormeks in use in industry but my experience shows baldor to be the standard for grinders.
my feelings of prostituting our workforce to the eastern seabord are pretty well known so i`ll refrain so that hopefully somebody down the road can glean some knowledge from this thread if it remains......02 tod

Matt Meiser

07-31-2006, 7:54 AM

Labor didn't make those decisions, and when Honda started making cars in the USA we discovered that the UAW could make Hondas as well as Japanese auto workers.

I'm not aware of any UAW Honda plant. The "big 3" only allow UAW made cars in their plant parking lots. If you have a Honda, you aren't allowed. According to this (http://www.uaw.org/solidarity/01/1201/union06.html) article on the UAW's own web site, they have been trying to organize Honda since the 80's unsucessfully. And this (http://www.uaw.org/about/where/region2b.html) page listing all the UAW locals in Ohio doesn't list Honda (Honda's plants are in Marysville, East Liberty, and Anna.)

Jeff Farris

07-31-2006, 9:42 AM

...I do find it a bit funny that this thread has devolved into an American manufacturing thread; last I heard, protecting the Tormek from competition would help no American manufacturer.

I have been very reluctant to join this thread, given my directly involved position. However, I have never been accused of having enough sense to keep my mouth shut at appropriate times. :)

My PERSONAL opinion on Chinese manufacturing is that it is not Chinese vs. America, but Chinese vs. the World (including Sweden). Until they allow their currency to fluctuate with the market and we start treating and tariffing their products the way we do European imports, what we have is not "competition". That of course does not address the issue of environmental controls and labor relations. The "world economy" justification has been thrown around by big business so long that far too many people are starting to buy it. Is pollution of the environment not pollution if you can't see it from your front porch? Are unfair labor practices OK if they're not happening to the guy next door. Oh, wait, the guy next door lost his job to someone in China (or India, Bangladesh, Korea, et. al).

Mr. Falgoust's post and others make me cringe. The logic of only buying exactly what you need -- I call it, "It'll do" mentality -- is what has made Stanley tools what they are today. I don't mean the company, they're probably wildly successful. I mean the tools.

And, I am sorry Mr. Henderson, but your definition of quality completely misses the definition of the word. I don't buy quality goods because I need them to last "75 years". I buy them because I like the way they feel and look and work. I like the confidence of knowing that this isn't the day I am going to test the "mean time between failure".

The soulless application of MBA theory to all business is creating problems that we will eventually come to regret.

tod evans

07-31-2006, 9:48 AM

well spoken jeff! tod

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 10:29 AM

Is it the customers themselves? How? When is the last time any of us communicated how a major tool could be made better and they listened and changed? Companies by and large have a philosophy of building to a given pricing structure. They do what it takes to make it to that cost/profit structure. It really is pretty simple.Customers communicate their desires in the aggregate by making purchasing decisions. Pricing isn't just about dollars and cents -- it's about information, a neverending feedback loop that tells companies what their customers do and don't want.

A manufacturer has to add features that sell and kill features that don't. Otherwise the manufacturer dies. It really is that simple.

Consider Sawstop (and let's not open a debate on its merits) -- they are betting the farm that a nifty brake will allow them to take market share from their competitors, even at a premium price. Are they right or wrong? Who knows! But we'll find out over time, as consumers make purchasing decisions and, in doing so, communicate their preferences to table saw manufacturers.

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 10:39 AM

If all this wrangling about of words only applied to so called hobbyists, I probably wouldn't care. But there are people who bang on the current available machinery day in day out to feed families. And, of course, those same professionals drive purchasing decisions far more than the average hobbyist, and they have to be one hell of a lot more practical in their purchasing decisions than the garage woodworker. Is it more cost-effective to buy a saw that will perform admirably for 30 years, or to buy a saw that performs well for ten and make three replacements? Businessess have to make those kind of capex decisions all the time, and the answer isn't set in stone.

For many of them, this is more than a theoretical debate. Too, for the people who use to build this equipment in this country, it is a very personal issue. Doubtlessly, it was very personal for buggy-whip factory workers when the auto came around. A century ago, 90+% of the population worked on farms, and doubtlessly it was very hard for those who worked in that industry to move on to something else -- today the figure is something like 3%. And yet, I think we are far richer as a society than we were a century ago.

The point being, specfic dislocations are always painful for the individuals involved. But that shouldn't distract us from the fact that free markets make us richer as a whole.

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 10:40 AM

One more time.

Competition will lower prices and raise quality, true,only
when the competition is fair. You've said this twice now, yet never stated what exactly is "unfair" about a company legally manufacturing a product in a place that minimizes costs. Care to elaborate?

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 10:48 AM

Mr. Falgoust's post and others make me cringe. The logic of only buying exactly what you need -- I call it, "It'll do" mentality -- is what has made Stanley tools what they are today. I don't mean the company, they're probably wildly successful. I mean the tools.
Of course, you can buy better tools than what Stanley makes -- you just have to be prepared to pay for it.

And why isn't that perfectly fair? Why should consumers who aren't interested in paying for the absolute highest quality equipment subsidize your preferences?

Because that, ultimately, is what you are suggesting: Stanley could, if it wanted, make higher-quality planes and such, and they would still be cheaper than the Lie-Nielsens of the world due to economies of scale. But they'd be more expensive than Stanely's current offerings. If 90% of Stanley's customers are perfectly satisfied with their current quality, why should they endure price increases just to satisfy some idiosyncratic notion of tool quality?

Mike Wenzloff

07-31-2006, 11:08 AM

Customers communicate their desires in the aggregate by making purchasing decisions. Pricing isn't just about dollars and cents -- it's about information, a neverending feedback loop that tells companies what their customers do and don't want.
...
But but...what are their available options form which to choose?

If you have a PC [even a MAC], 15 years ago what were your options in a word processor? What are they realistically today?

MS didn't have a better word processor. They had smarter marketing and top-level people than their competitors. In short, they made better deals.

But MS is the dominant force today for this choice. Competition is virtually eliminated. And MS Word is still a buggy piece of software. Cheaper too.

This didn't ultimately help the consumer at large. But you're right. The consumers of the world helped to cement MS's dominance in both the workforce and personal PCs. But that does not make MS's software better for cheaper. Just cheaper.

People in general tend to shop to a price point. We all do to a greater or lesser degree. The products we buy based on price may determine which products are available in the future. This does not mean that those products which survive are better in any qualitative sense. All it means is that company sold more widgets is all. And with greater influx of money, the product[s] may improve, or may not.

Take care, Mike

Mike Henderson

07-31-2006, 11:52 AM

Thank you for bringing private communication into the public space.

I understand your point, Michael. But it would be better/more accurate to say that the customer defines personal value, than quality.
The US went through an embrace of "Quality" some time back in response to the success of Japanese products. The goal was to build Quality into the products companies built. The problem they encountered is "What is Quality?" and "How do you measure it?". The definition the companies (at least all companies I'm aware of) settled on is "Meeting the needs of the customer". This was measured by customer surveys (for the quality of the design) and by number of defects reported in the product (for manufacturing quality).

If you can provide a better definition of quality - one which can be measured in a quantitive fashion, especially in reference to the customer purchase decision - many of these companies would like to hear it.

I apologize if you feel that I brought private matters into the public forum. I certainly felt that our PMs were just a continuation of the forum discussion and not things which should not be disclosed.

Mike

Just an added note, many companies define their Quality goal as "To delight our customers." This applies to services as well as products. Defining Quality as "I know it when I see it" is not very useful.

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 12:12 PM

If you have a PC [even a MAC], 15 years ago what were your options in a word processor? What are they realistically today?Wordperfect (http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/Products/Display&pfid=1047024307359&pid=1047025942227)
AbiWord (http://www.abisource.com/)
OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/)

Word is the dominant word processor, true, but there are alternatives. And there is a rational reason for that: interoperability has value. It is useful to know that when you create a document, 99.9% of the outside world will be able to read it without ****ing the formatting up. For the same reason VHS triumphed over Betamax, for the same reason DVDs trumped Divx, so too does Word dominate the word processing field.

And lest you think the above aren't true alternatives: the last law firm I toiled for was a Wordperfect shop.

MS didn't have a better word processor. They had smarter marketing and top-level people than their competitors. In short, they made better deals. Whatever MS's sins, this isn't one of them. Word is actually a good, stable word processor. Bug-free? No, but no worse than other programs of similar complexity. Folks who pine for Wordperfect are remembering the world through rose-colored glasses -- it does some things better than Word and some things not as well, and it is far from perfect.

This didn't ultimately help the consumer at large. But you're right. The consumers of the world helped to cement MS's dominance in both the workforce and personal PCs. But that does not make MS's software better for cheaper. Just cheaper. Again, define "better." "Better" to my mind includes factors like "I know if I send this to Joe he will be able to open and print it with no hassles."

People in general tend to shop to a price point. We all do to a greater or lesser degree. The products we buy based on price may determine which products are available in the future. This does not mean that those products which survive are better in any qualitative sense. All it means is that company sold more widgets is all. And with greater influx of money, the product[s] may improve, or may not.You cannot separate quality from price. I'd love to drive a Lamborghini -- exceptional quality, yes, but at a staggering cost.

No, when we say that competition improves both prices and quality, we're really saying that competition improves quality at a given price point, or that prices for a given level of quality fall. In short, you get more bang for your buck.

Also, am I dreaming or did tod have a post in here about farms and such? It seems to have disappeared.

Jeff Farris

07-31-2006, 12:18 PM

I think what a lot of this boils down to is that a great many of us think there is a difference between "best" and "most marketable".

Two companies are in the business of making widgets. Widget #1 does the job better and faster, but costs more to acquire. A small segment of the market recognizes its value, but Widget #2 costs a lot less and so the vast majority of the market chooses Widget #2. When Widget #1 goes out of business, is the survivor a better product, or just the survivor?

Someone brought up agriculture. Compare a tomato that is grown in a garden to a tomato from the supermarket, then talk to me about the wonders of economies of scale.

tod evans

07-31-2006, 12:24 PM

damian, i pulled it due to the politics, afterall this thread was premissed on sharpening clones not farming or manufacturing. feel free to check a few of the threads i`ve started in my short tenure here for my opinions on marketing and doing business with the far eastern woodworking equipment importers and manufacturers....tod

Ian Barley

07-31-2006, 12:49 PM

....Someone brought up agriculture. Compare a tomato that is grown in a garden to a tomato from the supermarket, then talk to me about the wonders of economies of scale.

I think that the Jet looks like an interesting machine and hope that it is good competition against the Tormek , because if it is they will probably both get "better" (more capable) over time or will get cheaper (less consuming of scarce resources) or quite possibly both. If one of them does and the other doesn't then consumers will make their choice, using price as their medium of communication.

About the tomato - I grow a few and know that if I added up the cost of the resources I put into growing them then the question could also be phrased as "Compare a $2 tomato to a 10c tomato , then talk about the economies of scale" The whole point about quality is that any level of quality is available at a price. If I decided I needed an indestructible tablesaw all that I would need to do is take about $5m and recruit a bunch of talented metalworkers, designers and engineers and set them to work to make me one. Hell, if I had $1bn I might do it for a giggle but to anybody else it would be a waste of resource which could more realistically be applied elsewhere. That is why "good enough" is king in any free market economy.

Glenn Clabo

07-31-2006, 1:18 PM

The soulless application of MBA theory to all business is creating problems that we will eventually come to regret.

There are many of us who already do...and feel that the rest simply don't fully understand the impact.

Peter Gavin

07-31-2006, 1:22 PM

Mike Henderson

07-31-2006, 5:13 PM

My take on the issue is that it all boils down to fairness and foresightedness. The workers in China (or Japan or wherever) have every bit as much a right to work and earn a living as Americans do. In fact, hopefully, as the world economy expands more of them will start earning a decent living and everyone will be better off. The problem arises when through Govt subsidies, lack of Environmental, Safety, Health, Unionization, etc. protections those workers are able to unfairly compete with the American worker (or rather the company that employs them). In such a case, the products the overseas workers make are unfairly priced and Americans are unable to make fair comparisons as to quality, value etc. Furthermore, instead of slowly improving the employement of overseas workers to the point at which their labor costs are roughly comparable to American's, we force American's wages etc down to the overseas level. The 21st century is going to be about increased globalization. The choice we face is whether we are going to demand that the growth that will arise from that globalization will be used to enrich the vast majority of people, or the drive for profits and competetiveness will be used to depress the earnings of American workers (no matter what color collar you wear). Just my .02.

Peter
Peter, you're very correct. One problem with us (Americans) complaining about subsidies is that we have to look in the same mirror - we provide huge agricultural subsidies to our farmers. Europe has tariffs on American agricultural commodities imported into that area, to protect their farmers. For agricultural commodities used in the US, the consumer benefits from the lower prices but pays the taxes to provide the subsidies. But when those commodities are sold into Europe (or anywhere else) the American citizen is subsidizing the European consumer who now enjoys a lower price on products made from those commodities (if imported without tariffs).

There are two sides to the coin. One side is the impact of competition from another country on various segments of the country where the competition occurs. In my example, on the farmers in Europe. The other side is the advantage to the consumer. Even if there are subsidies, the competition provides lower prices to the consumers in that country. In my example, the consumer in Europe gains from the lower prices. The same is true for products imported from China into the US.

Competition does lower prices and improve quality for the consumer.

The problem our political leaders have to grapple with is to make sure that in getting the advantage of competition for the consumer, there are still jobs for them so that they can remain consumers.

Mike

Per Swenson

07-31-2006, 7:08 PM

You've said this twice now, yet never stated what exactly is "unfair" about a company legally manufacturing a product in a place that minimizes costs. Care to elaborate?

Take that little word legal out. Sure it may be legal over there but a crime

over here. Here is a link to the average wage in china, comes to about

$150 a month. http://www.abroadchina.org/salary.asp

Now lets forget about China for a second and put this into Sheetrock

perspective.

A perfect drywall job can be had around here by hiring a Union shop.

I am going to make a arbitrary figure for this job at $1000.

There is another kind of drywall subcontrator around here.

He picks up his workers on the corner. He pays them $6 to $7 and hour,

10 hour day, but he buys a sandwich.

He is able to price the job at $250.

Customer thinks all sheet rock finish jobs are the same.

I call this unfair competition.

Everybody loses. Most of all the customer.

Per

Damien Falgoust

07-31-2006, 7:58 PM

Take that little word legal out. Sure it may be legal over there but a crime over here. Here is a link to the average wage in china, comes to about $150 a month. http://www.abroadchina.org/salary.asp
To paraphrase the indispensable Mike Royko, "$10 a day ain't bad if your lunch only costs a nickel." Such comparisons are meaningless unless you also factor in living costs.

Indeed, I've long held that the federal minimum wage is strongly supported in high cost-of-living states in part because it deters businesses from relocating work into low cost-of-living states. New York's gain is Alabama's loss.

And low wages are the bootstraps upon which struggling economies pull themselves up the economic ladder. The poor in these countries are attracted to the wages paid, which, while low to us, are a better deal than subsistance farming and the like. Eventually, those folks (or their children) become slightly more affluent and educated, and thus capable of doing higher-value work. This leads to more affluence, which leads to more valuable work, which leads to higher wages, and so on and so forth.

But first, you have to get away from subsistance farming. First, you need a means to compete. And the only way a low-skilled, impoverished labor force can compete with their more affluent competitors is on price -- by taking a lower wage.

Now lets forget about China for a second and put this into Sheetrock perspective.

A perfect drywall job can be had around here by hiring a Union shop. I am going to make a arbitrary figure for this job at $1000.

There is another kind of drywall subcontrator around here. He picks up his workers on the corner. He pays them $6 to $7 and hour, 10 hour day, but he buys a sandwich. He is able to price the job at $250.

Customer thinks all sheet rock finish jobs are the same.

I call this unfair competition. Unfair? Good heavens. I call it getting what you pay for. Is it "unfair" that McDonald's charges less for a meal than Alain Ducasse?

Caveat Emptor, for goodness' sake.

Mike Henderson

07-31-2006, 9:45 PM

Take that little word legal out. Sure it may be legal over there but a crime over here. Here is a link to the average wage in china, comes to about $150 a month. http://www.abroadchina.org/salary.asp
Per
Remember that China is still a socialist country. Many things an American would have to pay for are provided free by the Chinese government (examples: housing, health care). The standard of living is lower in China but not as much as you would think from a direct comparison of wages.
Mike

Per Swenson

07-31-2006, 10:21 PM

I surrender.

I give up.

All I have is a opinion.

However misguided you believe it is.

But the policys you seem to endorse are only winning Americas race

to the bottom.

Per

Dick Strauss

08-01-2006, 12:59 AM

Mike Henderson

08-01-2006, 1:19 AM

One of the ways that China competes unfairly is by not letting its currency float freely. If it allowed its currency to float freely (without any trading range restrictions as is the case today), their goods would be more fairly valued in the marketplace. These currency restrictions also cause US manufactured goods to be more expensive in the chinese market so much so that it makes the US made goods less competitive in the Chinese market. Most experts suggest the Chinese currency is still undervalued by 35-40%. Imagine if US made goods were 40% cheaper in China overnight. Much of China's industry could collapse from fair worldwide competition. The gov't of China obviously restricts currency valuations as a protectionist measure to preserve their own industry. If the currency was revalued, it would also cause a great deal of short term inflation within our own country because of Chinese imports.

I won't even try to addresss the environmental issues, rampant zero interest loans from the gov't, or other issues that extend the unfair advantage in China.
Dick, I know you addressed you note to Damien but please allow me to make a few comments about your notes on China.

Everything you say about China is true.

However, there's good and bad in it. On the good side, consumers all over the world get goods for a lower price than if China corrected all the issue you point out.

On the bad side, manufacturers all over the world are negatively impacted because Chinese goods have a price advantage.

It is up to our political leaders to make decisions about how to deal with these issues. Up to now, it appears that they want to maintain the lower prices for consumers as opposed to providing relief to the manufacturers.

My earlier point was that competition, even when one side uses unfair practices, provides lower prices and higher quality for consumers. The unfair practices hurts manufacturers.

Mike

Mike Wenzloff

08-01-2006, 2:42 AM

...My earlier point was that competition, even when one side uses unfair practices, provides lower prices and higher quality for consumers. The unfair practices hurts manufacturers.

Mike
Mike,

Through this never ending thread you have repeatedly made that statement.

Please tell us how unfair practices provides for higher quality.

As well, there is no way unfair practices can only hurt our US-based manufacturers without impact to all of us as consumers--and employees who would be able to be "better" consumers if they were still employed.

Geesh. Sometimes the logic just escapes me.

Also, you never did answer my question re your unique definition of "quality." Could you define it so a simpleton such as myself can understand your definition?

Thanks, Mike

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 6:28 AM

Damien,
I think Per's point is that the other drywall employers probably aren't paying taxes, disability, etc, on their day laborers or possibly on his own earnings. This provides the "day laborer drywall company" with an illegal and unfair advantage. Ugh, nasty bout of insomnia here.

Anyway, that's not really what Per said -- he cited labor costs between $6 and $7 per hour; in his home state of New Jersey (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm#NewJersey), the minimum wage is $6.15/hour, rising to $7.15/hour in October. It is, of course, considerably less in states that only adhere to the federal minimum. He contrasted that with a "union shop" paying significantly more. No mention of other cost advantages. That certainly sounds like a law-abiding company.

But even if it isn't, the only tax costs the employer is liable for out of his own pocket with respect to workers tax-wise are the costs of withholding the employer's share of FICA. The other tax costs -- employee FICA, income tax withholding, etc. -- are deducted from the employee's paycheck. That is, instead of paying it all to the employee, a little bit of the employee's check goes to the government. The employer is still paying the same amount and is just splitting that amount among two different payees.

Generally, the cost advantage for using illegals doesn't stem from tax compliance, but from the costs of employee compensation -- a lower hourly rate and eliminating the need to pay medical benefits and the like. And there's nothing illegal about that -- employers are free to offer whatever wages they want so long as they're north of the applicable minimum wage, and can offer whatever medical and other benefits they want -- whatever they think is appropriate to attract the caliber of employees they need.

The other items you mention -- the owner's failure to report his own income to taxing authorities, carrying required insurance, etc -- are obviously possible regardless of where the owner finds his labor force. Hell, a union shop owner can still be a greedy bastard and not pay his own taxes.

I also note briefly that illegals are generally unskilled but not necessarily lazy -- a lot of the lawn care companies here actually pay a fair amount above minimum wage, even for day labor, and they'd rather pay the day laborers because those guys work like pack mules.

Putting aside for the moment issues of immigration policy, why should I, the consumer, care how skilled an employer's labor force is as long as the job is done well? Let's take Per's drywall example. Let's say I'm a careful consumer, and I hire Mr. Day-Labor for my drywall job because he's cheaper, but I've done my homework as a consumer and have found that Mr. Day-Labor's other customers have been satisfied with his drywall work, that he has no BBB complaints lodged against him, etc. Mr. Day-Labor, recognizing he has an unskilled labor force, supervises his employees very closely, and thus gets quality work done. Why is that a poorer choice than hiring Per's union shop? Isn't hiring the union shop in fact economically irrational under those circumstances?

Not to mention the misguided notion that union=quality. I lived in New York for five years -- long enough to understand the folly of that little bit of propaganda.

Sorry for the rambling. It's late.

As for your points of China -- well, what Mike Henderson said.

tod evans

08-01-2006, 6:46 AM

On the good side, consumers all over the world get goods for a lower price than if China corrected all the issue you point out.

On the bad side, manufacturers all over the world are negatively impacted because Chinese goods have a price advantage.

Mike

right here is the crux of the issue/problem....by tai/chi pricing goods cheaply to lure customers competetors from the rest of the world are forced to either lower their quality to compete on price alone or go out of business. in the case of delta and powermatic they chose to lower quality, in the case of oliver, yates, newman whitney and numerous others they shut the doors. is the woodworking industry better off? are the consumers better off? look what the old american iron is bringing price wise.....most of this stuff is selling to small shop owners not collectors.....so why would "joe" the shop owner choose a 50+ year old piece of old american equipment to make his living with than some shiny new tai/chi import?
it`s not up to our government to regulate imported goods it`s up to each and every one of us as consumers to choose which companies and their respective countries we support and honestly it saddens me to see the so called "educated" members of our society promoting the far east businesses with such fervor. what do we really gain.......and what do we loose? .02 tod

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 6:51 AM

Please tell us how unfair practices provides for higher quality.

As well, there is no way unfair practices can only hurt our US-based manufacturers without impact to all of us as consumers--and employees who would be able to be "better" consumers if they were still employed. If I may on Mike's behalf...

"Unfair practices" in this context refers to things like government subsidies of industry that lower the cost of a country's exported goods below what they would be in a truly free market.

As I said in earlier posts, you cannot separate quality and price. I can produce the finest table saw ever built at a cost to the consumer of $5 million. Thus, when cost improvements occur that are unrelated to manufacturing (as in this example), I, the consumer, can get a higher quality good for the same price. Ergo, a quality increase.

As for your other assertion -- well, it's simply untrue, for the simple reason that any industry is a small portion of the economy as a whole. What's bad for workers in a particular industry may be good for the economy as a whole.

In the case of Chinese manufacturing, their subsidies of industry hurt those who work at US tool manufacturers. But they're a benefit to many, many others. Take woodworking machinery -- importing from China is quite bad for the handful of folks who would have worked on US table saw manufacturing lines. But it's a tremendous benefit to cabinet shops everywhere, who now find their cost of equipment to be substantially lower. And that benefits the cabinet-buying consumer by lowering the cost of cabinet installs. And there's a lot more of them than there are folks on the old Powermatic line.

Subsidies and the like are generally a bad thing in the long run for the country doing the subsidizing -- in the case of China's currency, Chinese citizens should be pissed that they're paying more than they have to for imports -- but that doesn't mean it isn't good for other nations' consumers, who benefit from the subsidizing country's foolishness.

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 7:00 AM

right here is the crux of the issue/problem....by tai/chi pricing goods cheaply to lure customers competetors from the rest of the world are forced to either lower their quality to compete on price alone or go out of business. Or, alternatively, compete on quality. Lie-Nielsen sells planes for a much higher price than Stanley, yet they seem to be doing OK.

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the quality dropoff from moving manufacturing overseas isn't nearly as dramatic as you seem to think it is? Maybe -- just maybe -- the (slight) quality difference is more than made up for by the (dramatic) price savings.

After all, no self-respecting cabinet shop is going to deliberately buy a piece of equipment that is known to fail early and often, no matter how low the price. And somebody's buying this stuff, right?

look what the old american iron is bringing price wise.....most of this stuff is selling to small shop owners not collectors.....so why would "joe" the shop owner choose a 50+ year old piece of old american equipment to make his living with than some shiny new tai/chi import? What is your basis for the assertion that most old iron sales go to small shops, at a price premium to boot?

Robert Mickley

08-01-2006, 7:31 AM

I’ll follow up via a PM if you want to continue the discussion.

However, I don’t see why you continue to say things produced outside the US are of lesser quality, and old things are of higher quality. Consumers vote with their money. If they thought something was of lesser quality (for the money) they would not buy it. That’s the basis of our free enterprise system. [

So your telling me that the new Delta cabinet saws are every bit as good as my 10 year old uni? I don't think so.
I looked closely at cabinet saws for a long time both new , old and in between before I came across mine at an auction. Even though mine spent the first 8 years of its life in a comercial cabinet shop its still tight and dead on. I honestly don't think one of the new import saws would in the same class would stand up to the day to day abuse in a cabinet shop.

If old things were better (for the money) companies would still be making and selling them. A company goes out of business when it can no longer make money.

Whats the reason they can't make money? simple you can't compete with asian labor. It's impossible.

Consumers are smart - after all, it's their money. It sounds to me like you're trying to substitute your judgement for theirs.
Mike

On the average, no they aren't smart. If they where we wouldn't live in a throw away sociaty. Things today on the average are not built to last. Nobody fixes things anymore. buy it cheap when it breaks throw it away and buy another. People today only see what they are spending now, they don't look at the long term cost of something. Take my sawmill for example. The bearings used on the band guides, I learned early on that there isn't a an asian bearing on the market that can take the abuse they take. Yeah Timken bearings cost me 3 times as much but they last 5 times as long. so which is cheaper?

tod evans

08-01-2006, 7:42 AM

After all, no self-respecting cabinet shop is going to deliberately buy a piece of equipment that is known to fail early and often, no matter how low the price. And somebody's buying this stuff, right?

What is your basis for the assertion that most old iron sales go to small shops, at a price premium to boot?

sombody is todays hobbiest, that small segment(used to be small) that purchased enough of the american made tools to keep a few of our manufacturers on our shores.
most of the "pro" shops are switching to european equipment as are the dedicated and well healed hobbiests.

my assertion that most of the older equipment is going to small shops stems from almost three decades in the trade and observing the postings here in the short time i`ve been a member.
when i first opened my doors there was quite a few tool manufacturers on our shores, i started with used equipment `cause that was what i could afford, as my skills and income improved i purchased new machines. i`ve made the mistake of trying to save money by purchasing tai/chi equipment only to have it fail in the middle of a job. now if i can`t afford high quality new tooling i look to high quality used tooling instead of the less expensive tai/chi offerings because i`ve found that the older american stuff will take the abuse i dish out far better than the newer tai/chi offerings...02 tod

Mark Singer

08-01-2006, 7:42 AM

Sorry :rolleyes: all I asked was is this a relabeling job or what? Next time I will ask myself and thats it! Or build a sofa from teak...:confused:

Per Swenson

08-01-2006, 8:49 AM

Ugh, nasty bout of insomnia here.

Anyway, that's not really what Per said -- he cited labor costs between $6 and $7 per hour; in his home state of New Jersey (http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm#NewJersey), the minimum wage is $6.15/hour, rising to $7.15/hour in October. It is, of course, considerably less in states that only adhere to the federal minimum. He contrasted that with a "union shop" paying significantly more. No mention of other cost advantages. That certainly sounds like a law-abiding company.

But even if it isn't, the only tax costs the employer is liable for out of his own pocket with respect to workers tax-wise are the costs of withholding the employer's share of FICA. The other tax costs -- employee FICA, income tax withholding, etc. -- are deducted from the employee's paycheck. That is, instead of paying it all to the employee, a little bit of the employee's check goes to the government. The employer is still paying the same amount and is just splitting that amount among two different payees.

Generally, the cost advantage for using illegals doesn't stem from tax compliance, but from the costs of employee compensation -- a lower hourly rate and eliminating the need to pay medical benefits and the like. And there's nothing illegal about that -- employers are free to offer whatever wages they want so long as they're north of the applicable minimum wage, and can offer whatever medical and other benefits they want -- whatever they think is appropriate to attract the caliber of employees they need.

The other items you mention -- the owner's failure to report his own income to taxing authorities, carrying required insurance, etc -- are obviously possible regardless of where the owner finds his labor force. Hell, a union shop owner can still be a greedy bastard and not pay his own taxes.

I also note briefly that illegals are generally unskilled but not necessarily lazy -- a lot of the lawn care companies here actually pay a fair amount above minimum wage, even for day labor, and they'd rather pay the day laborers because those guys work like pack mules.

Putting aside for the moment issues of immigration policy, why should I, the consumer, care how skilled an employer's labor force is as long as the job is done well? Let's take Per's drywall example. Let's say I'm a careful consumer, and I hire Mr. Day-Labor for my drywall job because he's cheaper, but I've done my homework as a consumer and have found that Mr. Day-Labor's other customers have been satisfied with his drywall work, that he has no BBB complaints lodged against him, etc. Mr. Day-Labor, recognizing he has an unskilled labor force, supervises his employees very closely, and thus gets quality work done. Why is that a poorer choice than hiring Per's union shop? Isn't hiring the union shop in fact economically irrational under those circumstances?

Not to mention the misguided notion that union=quality. I lived in New York for five years -- long enough to understand the folly of that little bit of propaganda.

Sorry for the rambling. It's late.

As for your points of China -- well, what Mike Henderson said.

Sorry Mark,

Damien,

You sure read alot into my brief sheetrock ditty that is not based in reality.

Thats OK, cause I wrote it in code to avoid the politcally correct miasma.

Take out the word union insert, 20 year experienced drywaller,member of the community, blue collar home owner with 3 children and a mortgage.

Now all this talk of tax's and liability and such isn't reality either.

This is New Jersey after all.

(Damien, You also might want to click on my profile visit my website,

you might find that like Tod I have been in the construction racket for 28 years. Succesfully.)

Now to that day labor crew. They are what I implied they are.
When you say "work like mules" I hear slave labor.
4 familys to a one bedroom apartment.

Need I spell out the rest? Oh why not.
The resident is out of work.
the day laborer remains a indentured servant. Hiding from La Migra
The overall quality of a finished wall goes down because the contractor
in order to come in on a bid has to cut somewhere.
The reality is, the cuts come near the end of a job when cost overruns
become apparent. That would be the drywall,paint and flooring.
Thats the reality, $3.00 a yard beige builders carpet in a eight hundred thousand dollar home.

I dunno, I should of stayed defeated on this. Kept my fingers off the keyboard.

Have a good day.

Per

Jeff Farris

08-01-2006, 10:02 AM

....On the bad side, manufacturers all over the world are negatively impacted because Chinese goods have a price advantage.

It is up to our political leaders to make decisions about how to deal with these issues. Up to now, it appears that they want to maintain the lower prices for consumers as opposed to providing relief to the manufacturers.

Here is another chink in the armor of your argument. Our "politcal leaders" are not acting in the interest of consumers, they're acting in the interest of big business. We are not competing with Chin Ming's Manufacturing Company. Most of the factories there are run by American or European big business, either openly or through some thinly veiled Chinese front. "Manufacturers all over the world" are not negatively impacted, they're just shutting down their North American and European plants and moving them to China to slash their labor costs and free themselves from environmental control obligations.

My earlier point was that competition, even when one side uses unfair practices, provides lower prices and higher quality for consumers. The unfair practices hurts manufacturers.

Mike

I am sorry, Mike. I absolutely cannot concede to your often repeated argument. Competition most certainly leads to lower prices. Fair competition could but does not necessarily lead to better quality. Unfair competition has a negative impact on quality. I don't mean "it'll do" quality. I mean quality.

Jeff Farris

08-01-2006, 10:22 AM

Sorry :rolleyes: all I asked was is this a relabeling job or what? Next time I will ask myself and thats it! Or build a sofa from teak...:confused:

And in looking back, I am not sure that your question was ever directly answered!

No, it is not a TORMEK manufactured product produced for Jet. Nor is it licensed by TORMEK. According to all the labeling and packaging it is made in China, not Taiwan.

Julio Navarro

08-01-2006, 10:32 AM

I think the "Made in China" phase is on its way out. I say this because there is another source developing for cheap semi-skilled labor that manufactureres are starting to tap...India.

I have seen some products comming out of India recently and I think that more manufactured products will eventually come from that part of the world. It is a growing population rivaling China's and they are desperate for work.

Look for more products labeled "Made in India"

"Made in Japan" was the begining and as what-comes-around-goes-around so will the cheap labor market and in my opinion its making its trip around the globe.

Cheap labor only occurs when people are desperate enough and there are large numbers of such people and China's standard of living is rising due to its trade prominance. Once the price of labor goes up so will the price of goods and manufactureres will go elsewhere. I think that eventually the world will turn and find that American labor will be desperate enough to work cheap again.

Lets not forget that the world was not a very pleasant place for the worker and laborer who produced that "old iron" here in the states in 30's and 40's. Labor was cheap then.

There are only a few places in the world with populations large enough to support cheap heavy labor capable of mass producing heavy equipment; Russia, China, India, Mexico and the USA (and possibly Brazil).

(It gnaws at me constantly knowing that when I buy something labled "Made in China" it's not only supporting another economy other than our own but also a potential enemy, hence my boycot of HF and Walmart ((shamelss political plug)))

Allen Bookout

08-01-2006, 10:41 AM

Sorry :rolleyes: all I asked was is this a relabeling job or what? Next time I will ask myself and thats it! Or build a sofa from teak...:confused:
MAN----You did it this time Mark!!! I do not know how you have the ability to get such a thing going with such a simple question.

Allen

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 10:55 AM

Now to that day labor crew. They are what I implied they are. When you say "work like mules" I hear slave labor. 4 familys to a one bedroom apartment.Ahem. Working hard for a low wage is not slave labor, and frankly it's an insult to those who are kept in actual slavery. A Mexican illegal working for $7/hour and living in cramped quarters is not the same thing as a Sudanese child kidnapped and forced into despicable acts against his will.

Need I spell out the rest? Oh why not.

The resident is out of work.
the day laborer remains a indentured servant. Hiding from La Migra Showing up at a day labor site is an odd way to hide from La Migra, and indentured servitude does not mean what you apparently think it means.

The overall quality of a finished wall goes down because the contractor in order to come in on a bid has to cut somewhere.
The reality is, the cuts come near the end of a job when cost overruns
become apparent. That would be the drywall,paint and flooring.
Thats the reality, $3.00 a yard beige builders carpet in a eight hundred thousand dollar home. Isn't this just a problem of a contractor failing to put in a bid that accurately reflects his estimated costs? After all, I could bid a construction job out at $1, and at that bid I bet I'd win a lot of jobs, but I'd be extraordinarly stupid to do so.

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 11:03 AM

sombody is todays hobbiest, that small segment(used to be small) that purchased enough of the american made tools to keep a few of our manufacturers on our shores.
most of the "pro" shops are switching to european equipment as are the dedicated and well healed hobbiests. So for genuine quality these days, buy European? Why isn't anyone complaining about Europeans stealing market share?

Especially if that's who the pros are buying from. The pros drive these things far more than hobbyists. Dell sells a lot more computers to businesses than they do to end consumers. The same holds for most equipment.

my assertion that most of the older equipment is going to small shops stems from almost three decades in the trade and observing the postings here in the short time i`ve been a member. Well, the odd thing about that assertion isn't that people buy old equipment; it's the assertion that such equipment is bought at a price premium. Unless a piece of equipment is rare and collectible, I don't think that statement would withstand scrutiny.

John Hemenway

08-01-2006, 11:54 AM

Especially if that's who the pros are buying from. The pros drive these things far more than hobbyists. Dell sells a lot more computers to businesses than they do to end consumers. The same holds for most equipment.

I was going to let this thread go then Damien had to bring in computers! :eek:

Big companies buy Dell not because they are the best, but because they are CHEAP! We're talking word processing workstations here. Not the same a 'Fine Computing'. I don't think high end computing is done on Dells. Was 'Toy Story' done on Dells? I doubt it.

There are price points for every market. Dell to supercomputer, Black and Decker to Felder. For most things the more you pay, the better it is. There is also a declining level of return. Is a $10,000 saw 10 times better than a $1000 saw? I doubt it.

Back to Mark's question...

Seems like a copy to me. If quality is good and price is lots less it might be a deal. Why would anyone pay the same price for the knock-off? They like the color?:confused:

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 12:32 PM

Big companies buy Dell not because they are the best, but because they are CHEAP! We're talking word processing workstations here. Not the same a 'Fine Computing'. I don't think high end computing is done on Dells. Was 'Toy Story' done on Dells? I doubt it. Toy Story and similar CGI work is done on large render farms of specially-designed graphics workstations. You can't really meaningfully compare them to desktop computers -- it's like saying a pickup truck isn't as good a vehicle as an M1 Abrams tank. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, my point was just that buisiness purchases drive these kinds of decisions more than consumer purchases, simply because there are more dollars at stake.

N.B.: I build my own PCs, because I've always been a computer game fan and certain modern games require specialized hardware and other special considerations (notably, heat dissipation). That, and I enjoy the build process. But for 99.9% of the tasks done on the typical PC (including many games), you'd be hard-pressed to notice a difference in performance between my homebuilt PC and an off-the-shelf Dell. Which is why I say you can't divorce quality from price. Sure, my home PC is "better" in some abstract sense, but unless you're a gaming freak you'd never know. For most users, the Dell provides the same quality at a lower price.

Ditto for CGI farms -- assuming I could work out OS and driver issues, maybe I could run Half-Life 2 at a billion frames per second on a render farm. Could I percieve the difference between that and, say, 200 frames per second? Somehow I doubt it.

tod evans

08-01-2006, 1:05 PM

damien, i type with one calloused finger and try to run a small business while trying to offer advice on this forum...we could debate any number of topics relevent to woodworking from the merits of sharp tools to the scourge of pressboard furniture and either of us could take conflicting view points and likely pose semilogical arguements from either side of the fence?
but i`m afraid i`m going to have to let this one go.....feel free to hire whom you see fit, feel free to purchase tools from whichever vendor makes you feel good and feel free to support which ever countrys economy you feel needs your cash.
please know that when i offer my .02 here it`s an opinion based on working with my hands for decades not armchair philosophy......02 tod

Mike Henderson

08-01-2006, 1:16 PM

I am sorry, Mike. I absolutely cannot concede to your often repeated argument. Competition most certainly leads to lower prices. Fair competition could but does not necessarily lead to better quality. Unfair competition has a negative impact on quality. I don't mean "it'll do" quality. I mean quality.

Let's take Per's example of the drywall, where one side uses union labor and does a good job, while the other side uses pickup labor and does a less good job. The union people cannot compete on price so they compete on quality (meaning less defects). The result is better quality for the same price.
Or, you can go with the lower cost job.
The customer has a choice and competition has provided it.

If most people choose the lower priced job, there will be more jobs with a high defect rate than before the lower priced people entered the market - and that has a negative impact on overall quality (higher defect rate).

But if the consumer values a job with low defects, they will choose the union job and get a better job than before the lower priced people entered the market. In that case the overall quality rises. Automobiles are a good example of this - higher quality at higher prices.

The problem with unfair competition, which I think is what you're alluding to, is that the price differential between the two jobs is excessive because the non-union job may not pay legal wages, insurance, benefits, etc. and the consumer cannot justify the cost difference for the quality job. Therefore, the overall level of quality declines.

But the consumer has still benefited from the competition and has had the choice of higher quality or lower price.

Mike

Jeff Farris

08-01-2006, 1:32 PM

... But the consumer has still benefited from the competition and has had the choice of higher quality or lower price.
Mike

The consumer has a choice as long as the quality crew can survive.

Mike Henderson

08-01-2006, 1:37 PM

Here is another chink in the armor of your argument. Our "politcal leaders" are not acting in the interest of consumers, they're acting in the interest of big business. We are not competing with Chin Ming's Manufacturing Company. Most of the factories there are run by American or European big business, either openly or through some thinly veiled Chinese front. "Manufacturers all over the world" are not negatively impacted, they're just shutting down their North American and European plants and moving them to China to slash their labor costs and free themselves from environmental control obligations.

North American and Eurpopean companies who have set up shop in China have not done very well, on the whole.

What those companies do is to contract with a Chinese company to have their manufacturing done. But in no way do they control the company who does that manufacturing, except in the way any large customer exerts control.

They do this to lower their manufacturing cost, of course. They simply cannot compete using labor in their home countries.

Perhaps I would have been more correct to say that the negative impact is on the home employees of the manufacturers, rather than on the manufacturers themselves.

If China was to correct all their faults, and manufacturing was to become more expensive there, another country would be the lowest cost manufacturer and those companies would have to shift their production to that country. So these companies may prefer that China stay the way they are.

In that case, our political leaders are acting in the best interest of both consumers and manufacturers, but not in the best interest of the people who lose their jobs or have to take lower paying jobs.

Mike

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 1:41 PM

The consumer has a choice as long as the quality crew can survive. If the quality crew cannot survive, then the quality crew is overpricing their product.

Mike Henderson

08-01-2006, 1:43 PM

So your telling me that the new Delta cabinet saws are every bit as good as my 10 year old uni? I don't think so.
I looked closely at cabinet saws for a long time both new , old and in between before I came across mine at an auction. Even though mine spent the first 8 years of its life in a comercial cabinet shop its still tight and dead on. I honestly don't think one of the new import saws would in the same class would stand up to the day to day abuse in a cabinet shop.

Whats the reason they can't make money? simple you can't compete with asian labor. It's impossible.

On the average, no they aren't smart. If they where we wouldn't live in a throw away sociaty. Things today on the average are not built to last. Nobody fixes things anymore. buy it cheap when it breaks throw it away and buy another. People today only see what they are spending now, they don't look at the long term cost of something. Take my sawmill for example. The bearings used on the band guides, I learned early on that there isn't a an asian bearing on the market that can take the abuse they take. Yeah Timken bearings cost me 3 times as much but they last 5 times as long. so which is cheaper?

Consumers are us. I think it's difficult to say that we are not smart when we spend our money. Other people may not make the same choices as you would make but that does not make them not-smart, just different.

On the whole, I think most people do quite a bit of research before they spend any significant amount of money, and wind up making an informed decision.

Mike

Damien Falgoust

08-01-2006, 1:49 PM

In that case, our political leaders are acting in the best interest of both consumers and manufacturers, but not in the best interest of the people who lose their jobs or have to take lower paying jobs. And, in fact, I'd add that consumers writ large are precisely who they should be looking after -- otherwise, you get things like farm subsidies and steel tarriffs: great for the farmer and steelworker, absolutely terrible for everyone else.

Mike Henderson

08-01-2006, 2:42 PM

The consumer has a choice as long as the quality crew can survive.

Yes, that's true long term and is the reason why we need to do everything we can to have a level playing field in the marketplace. I am not, and never have, advocated unfair practices in the marketplace.

The same is true for international competition. In the long term, people can no longer be consumers if their jobs are eliminated by unfair global competition.

It's just very difficult to come to an agreement on what is fair, especially in the international arena. Are our farm subsidies fair? Is it fair for China to control its currency to build up it's manufacturing base? How long should they be allowed to do that?

I don't envy the people who have to deal with these issues.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that in the short term, competition drives prices lower and quality higher for the consumer, even if the competition is unfair. Fair competition drives prices lower and quality higher in both the short term and the long term.

The other point I was attempting to make is that Quality can only be defined in reference to the needs of the customer.

Mike

[I'm going to add a few comments about quality]

Quality, like beauty, is a human assigned attribute – you can’t buy an once of beauty or a gallon of quality. All you can do is ask a person if they think something is beautiful, or if something has quality.

Quality, therefore, like beauty, can only be measured by asking for people’s opinions. The question is, “Who do you ask?” In a beauty pageant, the judges are the ones who render an opinion.

Anyone can render an opinion about quality. But a manufacturer is not concerned with just anyone’s opinion – they’re only interested in the opinion of people who are going to lay out their money to buy the product – the customers.

Therefore, most manufacturers define quality as “meeting the needs of the customer.”

The price of a product figures into the definition of quality. When market research is being done, the manufacturer usually asks, "Would you like to see this feature added to the product?" If the answer is "yes", the next question is, “How much extra would you pay to have this feature in the product?” If the answer is “zero”, the manufacturer has to find a way to include that feature at no extra cost, or leave it out.

Quality is an opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the customer's.