What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Zanza]

I am always surprised when I read the workforce numbers for American manufacturers. Airbus has less revenue, but twice the workforce of Boeing. It is similar in automotive. Outsourcing everything does not seem to be a good approach.

[Syt]

[CountDeMoney]

I am always surprised when I read the workforce numbers for American manufacturers. Airbus has less revenue, but twice the workforce of Boeing. It is similar in automotive. Outsourcing everything does not seem to be a good approach.

Stop hating capitalism.

[Tamas]

To be fair if Obama stood there with that creepy rabbit it would be considered hip and funny.

[Zanza]

I think the joke is the text in the brackets, Tamas.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm fine with the bunny but the rendition of the Star-spangled banner sucked. The operatic warblings should cease and it should be belted out by a choir of 100 US marines. Make America great again 

[Tamas]

I think the joke is the text in the brackets, Tamas.

[grumbler]

I am always surprised when I read the workforce numbers for American manufacturers. Airbus has less revenue, but twice the workforce of Boeing. It is similar in automotive. Outsourcing everything does not seem to be a good approach.

So, doing things that surprise you is a bad business approach because.... ?

Boeing had $4.9B profit on $95B sales in 2016
Airbus had had €2.3B profit on €66B sales in 2016
Which seems likelier to be engaging in a "good approach?"  The one with half the profit on two-thirds the sales?

[Zanza]

I honestly lack sufficient knowledge about Airbus and Boeing for an indepth discussion. That said, I would not limit it to single performance indicator. I don't think that profit is the be-all and end-all of corporate performance.

[garbon]

I honestly lack sufficient knowledge about Airbus and Boeing for an indepth discussion. That said, I would not limit it to single performance indicator. I don't think that profit is the be-all and end-all of corporate performance.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say though. Was outsourcing not 'a good approach' because it is leading to staff reductions? It doesn't seem a good approach because of reasons that you've not explained? (Theoretically I guess the amount of extra money that'll be gained from slimming down US staff counts vs. morale hit?)

[Zanza]

It's purely anecdotal and I am not knowledgeable enough about other companies and especially other countries to actually contribute much to a discussion. Which is why I merely expressed surprise and my perspective and didn't want to make a hard claim about it being better or worse.

As for my anecdotal experience, I work in the corporate HQ of a similar multinational myself and mainly look at it from that perspective. The outsourcing we do doesn't actually seem to increase the flexibility of our operations and I wonder if we wouldn't be more flexible if we had internal workforce, but could shift it easier from project to project. It does of course reduce fixed costs, but as it isn't just temporary, it continously generates high variable costs and I wonder if the rise in communication and other transaction costs doesn't eat all of the advantages of using external workforce for stuff that is not just temporary.

Coming back to Boeing: If Boeing reduces its workforce by 9000 in the last year alone (which is more than 10% of the total), I suspect that they also need to outsource more tasks as I have not read anything about them having substantially less business and I doubt they made such a huge jump in efficiency.

[grumbler]

I think that it is probably rather futile to make sweeping generalizations about corporations based on single articles, especially articles that mix a bunch of not-necessarily-comparable stats from a bunch of sources.  Boeing* says that they employ about 150,000 people (the article says that the number is 74,000, based on figures from the "Washington Examiner").

If we look at historical employment numbers** they look more in agreement with Boeing's claims than the Washington Examiner's claims, and show that Boeing employment numbers have been volatile at least as far back as 2000.  Making a big deal about the 2016 changes seems unwise in the face of a dozen or so similar changes in the last 20 years.  Sometimes a layoff is just a layoff.


* http://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/
** https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment-figures-from-boeing/

[Jacob]

It's purely anecdotal and I am not knowledgeable enough about other companies and especially other countries to actually contribute much to a discussion. Which is why I merely expressed surprise and my perspective and didn't want to make a hard claim about it being better or worse.

As for my anecdotal experience, I work in the corporate HQ of a similar multinational myself and mainly look at it from that perspective. The outsourcing we do doesn't actually seem to increase the flexibility of our operations and I wonder if we wouldn't be more flexible if we had internal workforce, but could shift it easier from project to project. It does of course reduce fixed costs, but as it isn't just temporary, it continously generates high variable costs and I wonder if the rise in communication and other transaction costs doesn't eat all of the advantages of using external workforce for stuff that is not just temporary.

Coming back to Boeing: If Boeing reduces its workforce by 9000 in the last year alone (which is more than 10% of the total), I suspect that they also need to outsource more tasks as I have not read anything about them having substantially less business and I doubt they made such a huge jump in efficiency.

Interesting perspective.

[viper37]

Boeing had $4.9B profit on $95B sales in 2016
Airbus had had €2.3B profit on €66B sales in 2016
Which seems likelier to be engaging in a "good approach?" 

Depends on the investments required to make suh profits.

[viper37]

Aircraft Carrier sailing in the wrong direction to deter NK

It's a new naval doctrine, I guess, fight with your back to the ennemy. 

WASHINGTON — As worries deepened last week about whether North Korea would conduct a missile test, the White House declared that ordering an American aircraft carrier into the Sea of Japan would send a powerful deterrent signal and give President Trump more options in responding to the North's provocative behavior.

The problem was, the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the four other warships in its strike force were at that very moment sailing in the opposite direction, to take part in joint exercises with the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean, 3,500 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula.

White House officials said on Tuesday they were relying on guidance from the Defense Department. Officials there described a glitch-ridden sequence of events, from a premature announcement of the deployment by the military's Pacific Command to an erroneous explanation by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — all of which perpetuated the false narrative that an American armada was racing toward the waters off North Korea.

Miscommunication. It happens.  The Captain thought he'd receive his orders via the official channels while he was supposed to listened to Fox News instead.