Can't and won't make it!

NervexProf

Thought provoking read here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 982965.ece

We once had numerous bike makers here in the UK - how many do we have now?

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

Some irony here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 984556.ece

Who is to blame?

The many comments/replies to this feature are thought provoking.

Your views?

Cressers

Low wage far-eastern competition, and the decline in cycling generally as car ownership increases.

teagar

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

teagar

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

Rather than everyone making their bicycles themselves in their own homes, you get one person to make 100 bicycles. S/he can make them cheaper and more quickly.

That's increased efficiencey due to specialisation.
Oh by the way dmc, - check out yesterday's david mitchel article in the guardian. You'll love it.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

Rather than everyone making their bicycles themselves in their own homes, you get one person to make 100 bicycles. S/he can make them cheaper and more quickly.

That's increased efficiencey due to specialisation.
Oh by the way dmc, - check out yesterday's david mitchel article in the guardian. You'll love it.

I work in manufacturing and I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that. Obviously you will prove me wrong with your superior academic pedantry, but hey-ho, experience counts for nothing when your juvenile opinion is as stake.
Is that David Mitchell, ( 2 l's or one?) the Peep Show fella ? I think you like him because you are mirrored. Am I being mildly offensive yet ? Hope so.

teagar

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

Rather than everyone making their bicycles themselves in their own homes, you get one person to make 100 bicycles. S/he can make them cheaper and more quickly.

That's increased efficiencey due to specialisation.
Oh by the way dmc, - check out yesterday's david mitchel article in the guardian. You'll love it.

I work in manufacturing and I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that. Obviously you will prove me wrong with your superior academic pedantry, but hey-ho, experience counts for nothing when your juvenile opinion is as stake.
Is that David Mitchell, ( 2 l's or one?) the Peep Show fella ? I think you like him because you are mirrored. Am I being mildly offensive yet ? Hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade

*shrugs*. I' not fussed if you don't agree. I take it your company specialises in certain types of production?

As for being offensive, I think you were the offended one when you told me to f*ck off and die.

Now that WAS funny. I guess i finally got the humour there. It's also sweet you get the actor and the character he plays in peep show confused. Aw!

desweller

As a manufacturing engineer, I'd have to disagree with dmclite. Specialisation is a cornerstone concept of mass manufacture. You don't get one person or process to execute all manufacturing operations for one product, you get lots of people or processes to specialise in each operation required to make the product, as it is simpler and faster = more efficient.

DW

bails87

dmclite
I assume your company manufactures every single type of product then. Rather than concentrating on say cars, planes, steel, oil, energy, financial products, clothes or electrical goods like all the other silly companies do.

As an example:
Trek are better at making bikes than Boeing. Trek can make a thousand bikes with the same resources it would take Boeing to make one plane. But if Boeing tried to make bikes, they'd only be able to make 500 bikes with that same pile of resources, because they don't know how to make bikes. likewise, Trek would only make a third of a plane with the same resources Boeing could use to make one.

So when Mr Trek wants a plane, he doesn't make one, because that would take 3 times the amount of resources he could use to make 1000 bikes. When Boeing wants 1000 bikes he doesn't make them, because he'd need twice as many resources as Trek. So Trek makes 1000 bikes, Boeing makes one plane, and they swap. If they'd made the things they wanted, rather than what they were good at, they'd now have a third of a plane and 500 bikes. Instead, Mr Boeing has twice as many bikes, and is happy. Mr Trek has 3 times as much aeroplane, so he is also happy. Everyone is happy, long live free trade!

Cressers

There is free trade and fair trade...

bails87

True, but that's a whole new discussion, I was explaining how free trade, comparative/absolute advantage and specialisation makes people better off.

Thinking about, aerospace wasn't the best example to use to explain free markets......how about farming.....or car production......or public transport......... :P

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

Rather than everyone making their bicycles themselves in their own homes, you get one person to make 100 bicycles. S/he can make them cheaper and more quickly.

That's increased efficiencey due to specialisation.
Oh by the way dmc, - check out yesterday's david mitchel article in the guardian. You'll love it.

I work in manufacturing and I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that. Obviously you will prove me wrong with your superior academic pedantry, but hey-ho, experience counts for nothing when your juvenile opinion is as stake.
Is that David Mitchell, ( 2 l's or one?) the Peep Show fella ? I think you like him because you are mirrored. Am I being mildly offensive yet ? Hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade

*shrugs*. I' not fussed if you don't agree. I take it your company specialises in certain types of production?

As for being offensive, I think you were the offended one when you told me to f*ck off and die.

Now that WAS funny. I guess i finally got the humour there. It's also sweet you get the actor and the character he plays in peep show confused. Aw!

No confusion, over the David Mitchell sentence, I do realise a character and an actor are 2 different things. I put this down to you not being British and mis-understanding the insult, subtle as it was.


Thing is I am going to disagree with most things you say as you are a young lad with not a lot of life experience. Life does not come out of a book, just reference.

Yep, been proved wrong by the manufacturing by the 2 other posts, they seem to know what they are talking about from a huiristic knowledge. I stand corrected, but did have my blinkers on.

Hows working in McDonalds or wherever it is you are now ?

Anonymous

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

A Times article suffering from nostalgia? Now there's a change.

Manufacturing is declining in Britain because of very simple economics.

The gains of free trade.

You get increased efficiencey with specialisation. Now that the market is global rather than national, you get international specialisation rather than regional. It's economically inefficient to manufacture most things in the UK, which is why most things are manufactured elsewhere.

Go figure.

Can you quantify that specialisation sentence please ?

Rather than everyone making their bicycles themselves in their own homes, you get one person to make 100 bicycles. S/he can make them cheaper and more quickly.

That's increased efficiencey due to specialisation.
Oh by the way dmc, - check out yesterday's david mitchel article in the guardian. You'll love it.

I work in manufacturing and I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that. Obviously you will prove me wrong with your superior academic pedantry, but hey-ho, experience counts for nothing when your juvenile opinion is as stake.
Is that David Mitchell, ( 2 l's or one?) the Peep Show fella ? I think you like him because you are mirrored. Am I being mildly offensive yet ? Hope so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade

*shrugs*. I' not fussed if you don't agree. I take it your company specialises in certain types of production?

As for being offensive, I think you were the offended one when you told me to f*ck off and die.

Now that WAS funny. I guess i finally got the humour there. It's also sweet you get the actor and the character he plays in peep show confused. Aw!

No confusion, over the David Mitchell sentence, I do realise a character and an actor are 2 different things. I put this down to you not being British and mis-understanding the insult, subtle as it was.


Thing is I am going to disagree with most things you say as you are a young lad with not a lot of life experience. Life does not come out of a book, just reference.

Yep, been proved wrong by the manufacturing by the 2 other posts, they seem to know what they are talking about from a huiristic knowledge. I stand corrected, but did have my blinkers on.

Hows working in McDonalds or wherever it is you are now ?

:P

Jez mon

Just out of interest, the article refers to "a hand-made Formula One car with a German engine". Which engine would that be, the Mercedes Benz High Performance engine people are based in Brixworth!

pedylan

Politics and economics - they're to blame for most things.

Politics. France, Germany, Itay, USA etc still have car industries, electronics production, heavy engineering, mining, etc. In the UK these industries are to a large extent gone. They're gone because successive govts since the 1970's either bugg*red them through catastrophic restructuring or didn't see a need for them and actively shut them down. In other G8 economies, govts presumably saw a need to preserve manufacturing.

Economics - low local wages and a other overhead costs mean our markets can be accessed by manufacturers who can undercut EU or US type production costs. But only with good products - my Ti bike (Sabbath) is assembled in UK with a far east frame. What would it have cost if the frame was manufactured in UK?

China is now the world's largest exporter having just overtaken Germany. The UK have instead got a banking sector that is the envy of the world. :evil:

teagar

There are other things to consider with regard to international specialisation.

Granted, it's economically more efficient, but that can be at the expense of existing industry, particularly in developed countries ( say Britain/France etc) which can have significant and serious social impacts - which is what the article above touches on.

The terms of trade included in the gains of trade tend to favour those with more money - i.e. Western exploitation of poorer nations occurs.

It doesn't take into account the environmental cost of that globalisation, which, given the larger distances that different components of a product need to travel, is an increasing problem...

It's an easy explanation in principle, but difficult in practice. The miner strikes are a classic case in point.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

There are other things to consider with regard to international specialisation.

Granted, it's economically more efficient, but that can be at the expense of existing industry, particularly in developed countries ( say Britian/France etc) which can have significant and serious social impacts - which is what the article above touches on.

The terms of trade included in the gains of trade tend to favour those with more money - i.e. Western exploitation of poorer nations occurs.

It doesn't take into account the environmental cost of that globalisation, which, given the larger distances that different components of a product need to travel, is an increasing problem...

It's an easy explanation in principle, but difficult in practice. The miner strikes are a classic case in point.

Are you someones wife ?


'cos you seem to know everything. Bagsy being in your Pub quiz team. Mind you most European countries, excluding Britain have been heavily influenced by German manufacturing principles as thet all capitulated during the war and had about 4 years of occupation.

PS, please spell Britain correctly, it is the done thing.

Smokin Joe

pedylan wrote:

Politics and economics - they're to blame for most things.

Politics. France, Germany, Itay, USA etc still have car industries, electronics production, heavy engineering, mining, etc. In the UK these industries are to a large extent gone. They're gone because successive govts since the 1970's either bugg*red them through catastrophic restructuring or didn't see a need for them and actively shut them down. In other G8 economies, govts presumably saw a need to preserve manufacturing.

:

The car industry in the UK went for the same reason that the motorcycle industry disappeared. They commited suicide by making shoddy and unreliable products that nobody would buy because Japanese firms were producing vehicles of far superior quality.

It is tempting to blame the government (specifically Mrs T) for this, but she closed nothing. She just stopped shovelling taxpayers money down the khazi to subsidise the manufacture of things few people wanted.

bagpusscp

It has been said that the general public will not pay much more than a £100 for a bicycle.Forget lightweights top end mtbs, I am taking general run about stuff.Here lies the problem.This country cannot make bikes to that price point, [due to wage levels}and thats were the sales are.Small quality frame builders will survive.The component side disappeared in the70's again some small high end makers survive.

nolf

pedylan wrote:

Politics. France, Germany, Itay, USA etc still have car industries, electronics production, heavy engineering, mining, etc. In the UK these industries are to a large extent gone. They're gone because successive govts since the 1970's either bugg*red them through catastrophic restructuring or didn't see a need for them and actively shut them down. In other G8 economies, govts presumably saw a need to preserve manufacturing.

Economics - low local wages and a other overhead costs mean our markets can be accessed by manufacturers who can undercut EU or US type production costs. But only with good products - my Ti bike (Sabbath) is assembled in UK with a far east frame. What would it have cost if the frame was manufactured in UK?

China is now the world's largest exporter having just overtaken Germany. The UK have instead got a banking sector that is the envy of the world. :evil:

Just to throw some numbers in here (they're no substitute for blinkered vision but it's the best I can do), about 75% of UK GDP is generated through service based industries with financial services accounting for a third of that. That means that financial services are responsible for pretty much the same proportion of GDP as all of the UK's manufacturing put together.

And for those who mention Germany and America, Germany is fairly similar with about 69.1% of their GDP from services and 30% from manufacturing, with America having an even greater percentage of 79.6% of GDP being generated by the service sector and a mere 19.2% from manufacturing.

The idea that it's somehow the governments fault that companies are innefficient and un-competitive is ludicrous. If you own a shop and it goes under you don't say, "But it's the governments fault for not giving me thousands of pounds"!
Manufacturing can work in the UK, but you have to find a niche that you can specialise in (generally high tech industry), and be ruthlessly efficient.

What right do we as a "developed country" have to sit on our laurels and not squeeze every last ounce of efficiency out of our economy?

nolf

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

There are other things to consider with regard to international specialisation.

Granted, it's economically more efficient, but that can be at the expense of existing industry, particularly in developed countries ( say Britian/France etc) which can have significant and serious social impacts - which is what the article above touches on.

The terms of trade included in the gains of trade tend to favour those with more money - i.e. Western exploitation of poorer nations occurs.

It doesn't take into account the environmental cost of that globalisation, which, given the larger distances that different components of a product need to travel, is an increasing problem...

It's an easy explanation in principle, but difficult in practice. The miner strikes are a classic case in point.

Are you someones wife ?


'cos you seem to know everything. Bagsy being in your Pub quiz team. Mind you most European countries, excluding Britain have been heavily influenced by German manufacturing principles as thet all capitulated during the war and had about 4 years of occupation.

PS, please spell Britain correctly, it is the done thing.

I'm sensing some history here, but it's the first time I've ever seen anyone outside of primary school and James Bond being criticised for knowing too much...
The curse of an enquiring mind.

Also in more recent years a lot of companies have been more influenced by Japanese prouction principles (e.g Kaizen). If a company has failed to adopt an efficient manufacturing process, then it will be punished by diminished returns and possible bankrupcy. Thats the great thing about the free market, failure = death.

One could say that the unwillingness of the UK manufacturing sector to adapt to change has been one of it's greatest weaknesses, and possibly responsible for it's dying state now.

Frank the tank

Maggie Thatcher and her henchmen are more than a little bit responsible for the destruction of Britains manufacturing base. Globalization and corporate greed have then carried the baton.

I work in the aero space industry and the company I work for are in the process of off-loading whole chunks of work and businesses to the supply chain. It's a point not lost on me that the chief exec at Boeing has come out and said that this very policy is one they're now begining to regret. But hey=ho let's follow their example regardless of implications for the national economy.

desweller

nolf wrote:

it's the first time I've ever seen anyone outside of primary school and James Bond being criticised for knowing too much...

Best Quote Of The Day!

Anonymous

nolf wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

There are other things to consider with regard to international specialisation.

Granted, it's economically more efficient, but that can be at the expense of existing industry, particularly in developed countries ( say Britian/France etc) which can have significant and serious social impacts - which is what the article above touches on.

The terms of trade included in the gains of trade tend to favour those with more money - i.e. Western exploitation of poorer nations occurs.

It doesn't take into account the environmental cost of that globalisation, which, given the larger distances that different components of a product need to travel, is an increasing problem...

It's an easy explanation in principle, but difficult in practice. The miner strikes are a classic case in point.

Are you someones wife ?


'cos you seem to know everything. Bagsy being in your Pub quiz team. Mind you most European countries, excluding Britain have been heavily influenced by German manufacturing principles as thet all capitulated during the war and had about 4 years of occupation.

PS, please spell Britain correctly, it is the done thing.

I'm sensing some history here, but it's the first time I've ever seen anyone outside of primary school and James Bond being criticised for knowing too much...
The curse of an enquiring mind.

Also in more recent years a lot of companies have been more influenced by Japanese prouction principles (e.g Kaizen). If a company has failed to adopt an efficient manufacturing process, then it will be punished by diminished returns and possible bankrupcy. Thats the great thing about the free market, failure = death.

One could say that the unwillingness of the UK manufacturing sector to adapt to change has been one of it's greatest weaknesses, and possibly responsible for it's dying state now.

You are right, me and teagar lock horns on here quite a lot.
We tried kaizen at my workplace and TPM, they are hard to adapt to a UK workforce. You have difficulty adapting one cultures way of working onto a different culture and people resist change as they generally do not trust Management.
I wasn't criticizing teagar for knowing too much, it was an insult, plain and simple. Mind you, with your high powered perception no doubt you will read something into this post, you certainly are cursed.......

pedylan

nolf wrote:

Just to throw some numbers in here (they're no substitute for blinkered vision but it's the best I can do), about 75% of UK GDP is generated through service based industries with financial services accounting for a third of that. That means that financial services are responsible for pretty much the same proportion of GDP as all of the UK's manufacturing put together.

And for those who mention Germany and America, Germany is fairly similar with about 69.1% of their GDP from services and 30% from manufacturing, with America having an even greater percentage of 79.6% of GDP being generated by the service sector and a mere 19.2% from manufacturing.

If you're prepared to overlook blinkered thinking then I'm prepared to overlook the forum being demeaned by the introduction of researched facts.

The UK automotive sector is said to provide employment for 800,000 whilst the German car industry for over 5 million. In manufacturing I think the figures equate to 180,000 and around 1 million UK and Germany respectively.

Your GDP facts are interesting. I guess I was looking at the "visible" manufacturing sectors eg VW, Audi, BMW, Porsche marques represent a lot of industrial activity whilst UK manufacturing which is largely foreign owned plant output (Nissan, Honda, Ford, GM). So an awful lot of German cars (and French and Italion) and not a lot of UK manufacturing left (eg BL and latterly Rover).

If we do as a country manufacture as much by value as other economies it seems a lot less visible in the form of engineering product.