How much longer to fix the 737 Max

[Tarheelpilot]

Those things are called Abney levels, and are in fact very useful.

You are the first person I have ever heard say those things are useful. How do you find it to be useful?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Well that explains it! We're getting MD-11 quality planes.. not classic 747/757/767/777 quality

To be clear. I was asking a question.

 

[ClippedWing]

The Boeing does not normally trim with the autopilot off. Seeing the trim wheels move in that situation would be unusual. There is a speed trim system but you would not expect it at that stage of flight.

Yes it does. The speed trim is constantly trimming, full speed with flaps out and half speed once they’re up. It’s something that you become used to trimming against (which just like MCAS, stops the auto trim.)

While this is a design flaw ( single point of failure,) the real question is why aren’t the regulators questioning the inappropriate actions of barely competent flight crew.

Because that is NOT sensational.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wsuffa]

Note that the downfall started when they moved corporate management away from Seattle and the manufacturing to Chicago (former home of Meigs) and increased the focus on military and defense. And profits.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

You are the first person I have ever heard say those things are useful. How do you find it to be useful?

It's a fairly accurate surveying tool for estimating grades in feet, heights above grade, fill requirements and other forms of site work. I use it when operating my dozer if I need to make a level grade. I've never used one in an airplane, but in smooth air and if you can hold altitude I can't see why it couldn't indicate if you were above or below the tops or bottom of an approaching cloud deck.

 

[kgruber]

................ it seems like some core component of the company has changed and the Boeing of the 2000s is not the Boeing of the 1990s and prior

They moved from Seattle to swamps of Chicago.

 

[PPC1052]

You are the first person I have ever heard say those things are useful. How do you find it to be useful?

When you set them on top of your papers on your desk, the papers stay put.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's a fairly accurate surveying tool for estimating grades in feet, heights above grade, fill requirements and other forms of site work. I use it when operating my dozer if I need to make a level grade. I've never used one in an airplane, but in smooth air and if you can hold altitude I can't see why it couldn't indicate if you were above or below the tops or bottom of an approaching cloud deck.

The airborne use only works if the cloud is close enough for the curvature of the Earth to be negligible.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The airborne use only works if the cloud is close enough for the curvature of the Earth to be negligible.

Yeah, this.

 

[DaleB]

No you can’t. You can put in a solid state gadget that estimates AOA, and is still reliant on external sensors, just not a vane.

How would something like this work? The solid state can figure out your attitude but how does it know the wings' angle relative to airflow? You need a physical sensor for that. I imagine you could estimate it by knowing the aircraft's profile and airspeed, but that would be just an estimate, like Salty said

Actually, you can. I have an AoA sensor in my RV-12 that uses no moving part and no vane. It uses an AoA sense port located near the LE of the wing, on the underside, in conjunction with the pitot. AoA can be calculated by the difference between pitot and AoA probe air pressure. While it does require an additional pressure sensor, there are no moving parts on the outside of the airplane. It's quite accurate. I don't know why Boeing didn't use a similar system. Given that they sank a lot of money into engineering and manufacturing to use a swiveling vane mounted externally, I would think there has to be a reason. Maybe the dual sense ports don't work well at close to Mach speeds or extremely high altitudes or something, I dunno.

 

[Jeff767]

I had the same system on My RV6. It worked great but would be useless in airline operations where the aircraft spends its life outside in the rain, sleet and snow plus being doused in deicing fluid. It also would not provide the needed accuracy over the indicated speed ranges a airliner flies. Covering 35 to 120 knots is not the same as 90 to 400 knots.

 

[Tantalum]

AoA sense port

sorry, yes, I was aware of these types of systems, I thought we were talking about something that's entirely solid state internal and self-contained without reliance on external physical data.. like an AHRS

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Actually, you can. I have an AoA sensor in my RV-12 that uses no moving part and no vane. It uses an AoA sense port located near the LE of the wing, on the underside, in conjunction with the pitot. AoA can be calculated by the difference between pitot and AoA probe air pressure. While it does require an additional pressure sensor, there are no moving parts on the outside of the airplane. It's quite accurate. I don't know why Boeing didn't use a similar system. Given that they sank a lot of money into engineering and manufacturing to use a swiveling vane mounted externally, I would think there has to be a reason. Maybe the dual sense ports don't work well at close to Mach speeds or extremely high altitudes or something, I dunno.

I don’t think a system like that can work on planes like the 737. Those wings have leading edge slats and flaps and trailing edge flaps which drastically alter the shape of the wing.

 

[Spring Ford]

How would something like this work? The solid state can figure out your attitude but how does it know the wings' angle relative to airflow? You need a physical sensor for that. I imagine you could estimate it by knowing the aircraft's profile and airspeed, but that would be just an estimate, like Salty said

Well, as I imagine it such a device would be a full inertial nav system and could determine the flight path by integrating all of the accelerations since the aircraft was parked. It can get the attitude the same way.

Job done.

It of course can't know anything about the air movement. Wind, thermals, sinks ...

I think I read that one proposal is to put a synthetic AoA "sensor" on the MAX - and then there were three. Can take inertial inputs as described above, input from the three static ports, the three pitot tubes. ... Not sure about all of that but I think I saw it somewhere.

 

[Tantalum]

Well, as I imagine it such a device would be a full inertial nav system and could determine the flight path by integrating all of the accelerations since the aircraft was parked. It can get the attitude the same way.

Job done.

It of course can't know anything about the air movement. Wind, thermals, sinks ...

I think I read that one proposal is to put a synthetic AoA "sensor" on the MAX - and then there were three. Can take inertial inputs as described above, input from the three static ports, the three pitot tubes. ... Not sure about all of that but I think I saw it somewhere.

Interesting, it's the whole "air movement" thing though that makes AoA so critical... otherwise it's just a slightly fancier artificial horizon

 

[Spring Ford]

Interesting, it's the whole "air movement" thing though that makes AoA so critical... otherwise it's just a slightly fancier artificial horizon

I believe many combat aircraft have a Flight Path Vector displayed on the attitude indicator. Angle between pitch and FPV is AoA - neglecting air movements again.

This is from a random sim site but it shows the idea - in this case we are clearing the ridge cos the FPV is where we are going. I don't know how to read the pitch which is bound to be there somewhere.

 

[nauga]

Angle between pitch and FPV is AoA - neglecting air movements again.

That's a simplification that only holds in wings-level flight.

There are ways of estimating AOA (and sideslip) from inertial data, but it's much simpler and more robust to use a sensor, whether it's an airflow direction sensor or a pressure sensor, that directly measures some aspect of the relative airflow.

Nauga,
and that Kalman guy

 

[Tantalum]

Angle between pitch and FPV is AoA

Hmm.. interesting. The Cirrus perspective (and all G1000?) have that flight path circle thing.. and an AoA

 

[nauga]

An estimate that works beats the hell out of a sensor that doesn't.

That depends entirely on the implementation and what you're doing with it.

Nauga,
sensored

 

[denverpilot]

Those solid state sensors for air flow are used in a lot of wind speed and direction gadgets on the ground. They’re not very accurate and tend to fail in precipitation. They also require a decent amount of code to integrate their flaky output from the sensors.

 

[murphey]

Honestly.. if you read my posts here about this I was ardently supporting Boeing through all of this and putting a majority of the blame on pilots/training culture.. and while I still hold that those planes did not NEED to crash, I feel like Boeing is losing its way post 777 success

They were historically very good at building planes, they launched the 757/767 together and the 777 was very successfully rolled out, and was a real game changer when it did so.. biggest engines, longest ETOPS time, etc., a TON of firsts.. yet the development was crazy fast... launched in 1990 and flying by 1995.. the 747 was crazy fast development as well, with many firsts that really, were topped (the A380 is bigger and more efficient, but it's a commercial failure)

so what happened? How did Boeing go from quickly building groundbreaking, good, successful airplanes.. to rolling out what now appears to be very late, and from what we've heard by QA whislteblowers on the 787, 737, and Air Force tanker 767, sloppy construction? How did they lose their way? I recently read that the 777X fuselage spectacularly failed well below the design limit.. I get that's why we test, but it seems like some core component of the company has changed and the Boeing of the 2000s is not the Boeing of the 1990s and prior

Part of the problem is the McDonald-Douglas/Boeing merger in the 1990s....or as it was referred to internally, "McD bought Boeing with Boeing's money". There was a great deal of animosity between the two cultures. Then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, creating the MAX was approved by a previous CEO who was not an engineer and had zero experience in aviation/aerospace. But the board brought him on anyway. While I was there (late 90s,early 2000s) it was not just obvious but blatant that the lawyers were/are running the company and making technical decisions, not the engineers. And the engineers were not happy, not happy at all.

 

[murphey]

Isn’t it actually MD upper management running Boeing now post merger?

Yup.

 

[murphey]

Note that the downfall started when they moved corporate management away from Seattle and the manufacturing to Chicago (former home of Meigs) and increased the focus on military and defense. And profits.

One of the reasons for the move was upper management travel time. SeaTac - DC and back is at least 2 days, not so for ORD. ORD is easier for over-the-pole flights, too. The move was almost entirely upper mgt, less than 200 people IIRC. I don't think any manufacturing moved.

 

[Warmi]

One of the reasons for the move was upper management travel time. SeaTac - DC and back is at least 2 days, not so for ORD. ORD is easier for over-the-pole flights, too. The move was almost entirely upper mgt, less than 200 people IIRC. I don't think any manufacturing moved.

No manufacturing but I would think more than just 200 people ...

Here is the place ...

 

[Warmi]

There is another aspect to it ... look at the underlying reason for developing MCAS in the first place.
When you start designing aircraft systems to get around potentially very costly regulations requirements then at this point we need to start reevaluating If these requirements do more harm than good.

 

[denverpilot]

There is another aspect to it ... look at the underlying reason for developing MCAS in the first place.
When you start designing aircraft systems to get around potentially very costly regulations requirements then at this point we need to start reevaluating If these requirements do more harm than good.

Or they really just needed to accept that it needed to be a new type rating and a different aircraft.

Calling everything from the -100 to the MAX all a single type is getting a tad ludicrous. But a certain carrier kinda wanted that...

Or is the type split at the -300? I forget and not going to bother to look it up. Y’all get the point.

They also screwed themselves not being able to ramp the 757 line back up as the general aircraft size came back into vogue.

Making the 73 bigger and bigger when you once knew how to build lots of 75s, is kinda stupid.

Yeah I know sales sucked on it for a while, but look at what size aircraft Airbus is closing big long term deals with now...

Just one dummy’s opinion...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Or they really just needed to accept that it needed to be a new type rating and a different aircraft.

Amen to that.

Or is the type split at the -300? I forget and not going to bother to look it up. Y’all get the point.

No, they are all the same type.

They also screwed themselves not being able to ramp the 757 line back up as the general aircraft size came back into vogue.

Making the 73 bigger and bigger when you once knew how to build lots of 75s, is kinda stupid.

Have to agree with that, too.

Just one dummy’s opinion...

Yeah, mine too.

I have time it the -700, -800, -900 and -900ER. The sevens and eights are fine airplanes. But Boeing went one step too far with the 900 series. When you have to increase rotation speed to keep from striking the tail on takeoff, and approach speeds for the same reason, that should have been a clue that enough is enough.

As far as I know, Southwest does not have any -900s so we cannot blame that on them. But yeah, why the -900 when the 757 is basically the same passenger capacity?

 

[Jeff767]

I don’t believe you have time in all those aircraft. The 737-900 approach speed is slower than the 800.

“As far as the 900ER at least on the version Delta purchased the approach speeds are lower then the 800 and the stopping distances shorter. Depending on weight 200 to 900 feet shorter.
“Takeoff distances and rejected takeoff performance is also better. Approach speed on the 900ER at 140,000lbs is 136 knots verses 139 on the 800. Rate of climb to 30,000 feet is identical. Above 30k the 900 lags the 800 by about 200fpm.”

The 757 was a extremely costly aircraft to build. The 737-800 had a 30% per seat cost advantage over the 757. The 900 was even better. There was simply no market for the 757 and would not be a market today at the cost required to build it. On top of those costs the 757 requires widebody support equipment not normally found at smaller airports.

 

[Rushie]

Honestly.. if you read my posts here about this I was ardently supporting Boeing through all of this and putting a majority of the blame on pilots/training culture.. and while I still hold that those planes did not NEED to crash, I feel like Boeing is losing its way post 777 success

They were historically very good at building planes, they launched the 757/767 together and the 777 was very successfully rolled out, and was a real game changer when it did so.. biggest engines, longest ETOPS time, etc., a TON of firsts.. yet the development was crazy fast... launched in 1990 and flying by 1995.. the 747 was crazy fast development as well, with many firsts that really, were topped (the A380 is bigger and more efficient, but it's a commercial failure)

so what happened? How did Boeing go from quickly building groundbreaking, good, successful airplanes.. to rolling out what now appears to be very late, and from what we've heard by QA whislteblowers on the 787, 737, and Air Force tanker 767, sloppy construction? How did they lose their way? I recently read that the 777X fuselage spectacularly failed well below the design limit.. I get that's why we test, but it seems like some core component of the company has changed and the Boeing of the 2000s is not the Boeing of the 1990s and prior

Outsourcing and offshoring. The same thing that ruined a lot of of stuff in America. And moving to Chicago didn’t help.

Here are quotes from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/#3a11a4bd7b1b

“Boeing’s outsourcing was modeled in part on Toyota's supply chain, which has enabled Toyota to develop new cars with shorter development cycle times. Toyota successfully outsources around 70 percent of its vehicles to a trusted group of partner firms.

However key elements of the Toyota outsourcing model were not implemented at Boeing. Toyota maintains tight control over the overall design and engineering of its vehicles and only outsources to suppliers who have proven their ability to deliver with the required timeliness, quality, cost reduction and continuous innovation. As Toyota works closely with its suppliers and responds to supplier concerns with integrity and mutual respect, it has established an impressive level of professional trust and an overriding preoccupation with product quality.

By contrast, Boeing adopted the superficial structure of Toyota’s tiered outsourcing model without the values and practices on which it rests. Instead, Boeing relied on poorly designed contractual arrangements, which created perverse incentives to work at the speed of the slowest supplier, by providing penalties for delay but no rewards for timely delivery.”
.......
“Rather than plan for face-to-face communications and on-site communcations, Boeing introduced a web-based communications tool called Exostar in which suppliers were supposed to input up-to-date information about the progress of their work. The tool was meant to provide supply chain visibility, improve control and integration of critical business processes, and reduce development time and cost. Instead of people communicating with people face-to-face, the computer itself was supposed to flag problems in real time.

Not surprisingly, the tool failed. Suppliers did not input accurate and timely information, in part due to cultural differences and lack of trust. As a result, neither Tier-1 suppliers nor Boeing became aware of problems in a timely fashion.”
........

“After the move, Condit says that he spent much of his time in the Chicago business community, where he “encountered CEOs frequently gathering to nail down civic goals ranging from landing new companies to building world-class parks. ‘I was surprised by how much that happened,’ Condit said. ‘A meeting in which Starbucks, Microsoft, Costco, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser and a bunch of small businesses are all in the same place — rarely happens in Seattle,” he added. ‘It happened all the time in Chicago.’”

So while Boeing’s CEO was in Chicago, strategizing about the future of Boeing and discussing civic goals with CEOs from other companies, the managers back in Seattle were making business decisions about tiresome “how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff” that would determine whether there would be a firm to strategize about.“

Sorry about the broken links. I don’t know how to de-link them.

 

[Bill]

Exostar , and most of the other T-1s have similar systems. Not a fan.

 

[Warmi]

Or they really just needed to accept that it needed to be a new type rating and a different aircraft.

Calling everything from the -100 to the MAX all a single type is getting a tad ludicrous. But a certain carrier kinda wanted that...

Or is the type split at the -300? I forget and not going to bother to look it up. Y’all get the point.

They also screwed themselves not being able to ramp the 757 line back up as the general aircraft size came back into vogue.

Making the 73 bigger and bigger when you once knew how to build lots of 75s, is kinda stupid.

Yeah I know sales sucked on it for a while, but look at what size aircraft Airbus is closing big long term deals with now...

Just one dummy’s opinion...

Outsourcing and offshoring. The same thing that ruined a lot of of stuff in America. And moving to Chicago didn’t help.

Here are quotes from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing/#3a11a4bd7b1b

“Boeing’s outsourcing was modeled in part on Toyota's supply chain, which has enabled Toyota to develop new cars with shorter development cycle times. Toyota successfully outsources around 70 percent of its vehicles to a trusted group of partner firms.

However key elements of the Toyota outsourcing model were not implemented at Boeing. Toyota maintains tight control over the overall design and engineering of its vehicles and only outsources to suppliers who have proven their ability to deliver with the required timeliness, quality, cost reduction and continuous innovation. As Toyota works closely with its suppliers and responds to supplier concerns with integrity and mutual respect, it has established an impressive level of professional trust and an overriding preoccupation with product quality.

By contrast, Boeing adopted the superficial structure of Toyota’s tiered outsourcing model without the values and practices on which it rests. Instead, Boeing relied on poorly designed contractual arrangements, which created perverse incentives to work at the speed of the slowest supplier, by providing penalties for delay but no rewards for timely delivery.”
.......
“Rather than plan for face-to-face communications and on-site communcations, Boeing introduced a web-based communications tool called Exostar in which suppliers were supposed to input up-to-date information about the progress of their work. The tool was meant to provide supply chain visibility, improve control and integration of critical business processes, and reduce development time and cost. Instead of people communicating with people face-to-face, the computer itself was supposed to flag problems in real time.

Not surprisingly, the tool failed. Suppliers did not input accurate and timely information, in part due to cultural differences and lack of trust. As a result, neither Tier-1 suppliers nor Boeing became aware of problems in a timely fashion.”
........

“After the move, Condit says that he spent much of his time in the Chicago business community, where he “encountered CEOs frequently gathering to nail down civic goals ranging from landing new companies to building world-class parks. ‘I was surprised by how much that happened,’ Condit said. ‘A meeting in which Starbucks, Microsoft, Costco, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser and a bunch of small businesses are all in the same place — rarely happens in Seattle,” he added. ‘It happened all the time in Chicago.’”

So while Boeing’s CEO was in Chicago, strategizing about the future of Boeing and discussing civic goals with CEOs from other companies, the managers back in Seattle were making business decisions about tiresome “how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff” that would determine whether there would be a firm to strategize about.“

Sorry about the broken links. I don’t know how to de-link them.

A lot of stuff in America costs just a fraction what it used to because of outsourcing. It may not work for certain operations ( like Boeing ) but it works - it is not like this is some kind of global directive companies are following - it is the market - try to compete setting a company that attempts to produce everything locally and see how far you will get. People like to ***** about cheap outsourced products but they will keep buying them instead of premium local offerings because, for the most part, they are good enough for 90% of people.

 

[murphey]

No manufacturing but I would think more than just 200 people ...

Here is the place ...

Just because there’s a logo on top doesn’t mean the building is mostly that company. Things may have changed, but originally only upper mgt and staff moved. In fact when Denver & Dallas were being considered with Chicago, it was very specific about who and how many were moving.

Yeah, right - Denver or Dallas...those of us who understood why the move was happening laughed when they came to Denver. There was also a political revenge component regarding Seattle, which wasn’t made public.....much.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/on...te-headquarters-to-chicago-in-2001/827067193/

and another but more grassroots view, which says much of what I heard while at Boeing during the search.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/4aw2xu/why_did_boeing_hq_leave_seattle/
Stonecipher came from McD with the merger.

 

[wsuffa]

One of the reasons for the move was upper management travel time. SeaTac - DC and back is at least 2 days, not so for ORD. ORD is easier for over-the-pole flights, too. The move was almost entirely upper mgt, less than 200 people IIRC. I don't think any manufacturing moved.

Correct. I didn't write that well at all.

Let's try it again: "the moved it away from Seattle to Chicago, and in doing so moved it away from manufacturing". That was what I meant to say. Moving it far from the key plant meant management (even if it was only 200...) was less in-touch with the production folks.

 

[Rushie]

A lot of stuff in America costs just a fraction what it used to because of outsourcing. It may not work for certain operations ( like Boeing ) but it works - it is not like this is some kind of global directive companies are following - it is the market - try to compete setting a company that attempts to produce everything locally and see how far you will get. People like to ***** about cheap outsourced products but they will keep buying them instead of premium local offerings because, for the most part, they are good enough for 90% of people.

I agree with that. I know it’s the market. It’s an uneven market with different conditions in the U.S. than overseas making a vastly different manufacturing cost hence ability to sell lower cost back here. And the general public like the cheap products. Nothing at all wrong with lower prices... for the same quality. Sometimes you get it, a lot of times you don’t. Being a half world away from monitoring quality control is a challenge.

 

[DaleB]

I don’t think a system like that can work on planes like the 737. Those wings have leading edge slats and flaps and trailing edge flaps which drastically alter the shape of the wing.

Immaterial, really. The sense port on the LE of the wing is only one option. Both Dynon and Garmin (and maybe others) make combined pitot/AOA probes with both ports. It’s not a big secret; the AOA sense port is angled relative to the pitot. Differing wing characteristics as the flaps and slats are deployed can be accounted for in software - assuming you have feedback that will tell the system the positions of the aerodynamic devices. I would think that’s the case on anything built in this century at least.

 

[Brad Smith]

Since we’re talking outsourcing, remember the Boeing 787 Dreamliner? A prime example of how outsourcing can get out of hand and almost sink a company. I don’t think Boeing can endure another debacle, whether a result of engineering or creative planning.

 

[Tantalum]

...and it looks like Boeing may be suspending 737 Max production in January... WOW https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/boeing-will-suspend-737-max-production-in-january.html

This company has lost it's way.. we went from someone who could crank out successful game changer airplanes in relatively short time frames.. to a company that can't figure out how to put two AoA indicators on an airplane

I was on the side of Boeing for a long time when this first unfolded.. but the company's handling of this has been pathetic. You can honestly see the mettle of an organization not when things are going smooth, but when obstacles are encountered, and Boeing has flat out failed this one..

...and yeah, the commonality thing is ridiculous now..

THIS:


DOES NOT EQUAL THIS:

 

[kyleb]

A lot of stuff in America costs just a fraction what it used to because of outsourcing. It may not work for certain operations ( like Boeing ) but it works - it is not like this is some kind of global directive companies are following - it is the market - try to compete setting a company that attempts to produce everything locally and see how far you will get. People like to ***** about cheap outsourced products but they will keep buying them instead of premium local offerings because, for the most part, they are good enough for 90% of people.

Here's my take on it:

When Wally World first exported toaster production to some Chinese enterprise in Shanghai, as opposed to buying them from a US supplier in Pig's Knuckle Arkansas, they gained a competitive advantage for a minute. But Target and everyone else soon followed, evaporating the competitive advantage. Now, the guy who made $15/hr at the factory in Arkansas is flipping burgers somewhere for $8/hr because his skill set has been offshored. So he can't afford to buy a new toaster. Neither Wally World or Target or any other US retailer benefits from that.

Ultimately, we have offshored millions of blue collar jobs to China, leaving the people with that skill set SOL. We've killed the lower middle class, economically. That isn't healthy for our economy.

Thanks, Wal-Mart. Oh, and by the way, Wal-Mart used to have "We prefer to sell US made products." banners draped around their stores. As soon as they had enough market share, they dumped that claim and went silent on the topic while they off-shored everything and undermined the purchasing ability of their core customer base. I think they are the most obvious example of a company which completely screwed over the US middle class.

 

[Tantalum]

Here's my take on it:

When Wally World first exported toaster production to some Chinese enterprise in Shanghai, as opposed to buying them from a US supplier in Pig's Knuckle Arkansas, they gained a competitive advantage for a minute. But Target and everyone else soon followed, evaporating the competitive advantage. Now, the guy who made $15/hr at the factory in Arkansas is flipping burgers somewhere for $8/hr because his skill set has been offshored. So he can't afford to buy a new toaster. Neither Wally World or Target or any other US retailer benefits from that.

Ultimately, we have offshored millions of blue collar jobs to China, leaving the people with that skill set SOL. We've killed the lower middle class, economically. That isn't healthy for our economy.

Thanks, Wal-Mart. Oh, and by the way, Wal-Mart used to have "We prefer to sell US made products." banners draped around their stores. As soon as they had enough market share, they dumped that claim and went silent on the topic while they off-shored everything and undermined the purchasing ability of their core customer base. I think they are the most obvious example of a company which completely screwed over the US middle class.

It's philosophically a tantalizing topic.. what's the solution? Require these things to be made here? Tax? / tariff offshoring? / reduce our own labor laws so that it's not cheaper to offshore? / create labor laws abroad so it's not cheaper? / change environmental laws?

There is no easy solution..

 

[Warmi]

Here's my take on it:

When Wally World first exported toaster production to some Chinese enterprise in Shanghai, as opposed to buying them from a US supplier in Pig's Knuckle Arkansas, they gained a competitive advantage for a minute. But Target and everyone else soon followed, evaporating the competitive advantage. Now, the guy who made $15/hr at the factory in Arkansas is flipping burgers somewhere for $8/hr because his skill set has been offshored. So he can't afford to buy a new toaster. Neither Wally World or Target or any other US retailer benefits from that.

Ultimately, we have offshored millions of blue collar jobs to China, leaving the people with that skill set SOL. We've killed the lower middle class, economically. That isn't healthy for our economy.

Thanks, Wal-Mart. Oh, and by the way, Wal-Mart used to have "We prefer to sell US made products." banners draped around their stores. As soon as they had enough market share, they dumped that claim and went silent on the topic while they off-shored everything and undermined the purchasing ability of their core customer base. I think they are the most obvious example of a company which completely screwed over the US middle class.

Think about it this way ..as a consumer when you shop for something , you primary considerations is how cheap you can get it at a reasonably acceptable quality ... that’s what is happening here on a somewhat larger scale.