為什么中國工資上漲沒有導致更多制造業(yè)回流到美國？
Why didn't rising wages in China lead to more manufacturing returning to America?
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：在中國制造一臺聯(lián)合收割機的勞動力成本為29,500美元，而在美國相同的勞動力成本為180,000美元。
正文翻譯
Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam
Labor in China to make a Combine Harvester costs $ 29,500 whereas the same labor costs $ 180,000 in US
在中國制造一臺聯(lián)合收割機的勞動力成本為29,500美元，而在美國相同的勞動力成本為180,000美元。
Labor in China to make a Combine Harvester costs $ 29,500 whereas the same labor costs $ 180,000 in US
在中國制造一臺聯(lián)合收割機的勞動力成本為29,500美元，而在美國相同的勞動力成本為180,000美元。
This is because
40% of the work in China is fully mechanized unlike only 15% in USA
The Skilled Chinese Worker is paid 2130 Yuan ($ 294) per week for 60 hours (50 hours normal plus 10 hours overtime) versus $ 1,270 a week for 40 hours in the US
The Skilled Chinese worker costs only 37,700 Yuan a year in benefits and security against a whopping $ 30,850 a year for an American worker including Insurance and Workers comp contributions
原因是： 中國40%的工作完全實現(xiàn)了機械化，而美國只有15%。 熟練的中國工人每周工作60小時（正常工作50小時，加班10小時），每周工資為2130元人民幣（294美元），而美國熟練工人每周工作40小時，工資為1270美元。 中國熟練工人每年僅需37,700元人民幣的福利和保障，而美國工人則需高達30,850美元的福利，包括保險和工人賠償金。
40% of the work in China is fully mechanized unlike only 15% in USA
The Skilled Chinese Worker is paid 2130 Yuan ($ 294) per week for 60 hours (50 hours normal plus 10 hours overtime) versus $ 1,270 a week for 40 hours in the US
The Skilled Chinese worker costs only 37,700 Yuan a year in benefits and security against a whopping $ 30,850 a year for an American worker including Insurance and Workers comp contributions
原因是： 中國40%的工作完全實現(xiàn)了機械化，而美國只有15%。 熟練的中國工人每周工作60小時（正常工作50小時，加班10小時），每周工資為2130元人民幣（294美元），而美國熟練工人每周工作40小時，工資為1270美元。 中國熟練工人每年僅需37,700元人民幣的福利和保障，而美國工人則需高達30,850美元的福利，包括保險和工人賠償金。
This is also because
A Ningbo line can turnover 130 Harvesters a month against 33 for a line in Akron Ohio
China cannot be touched when it comes to manufacturing
此外，原因還在于： 寧波的生產(chǎn)線每月可以生產(chǎn)130臺收割機，而俄亥俄州阿克倫的生產(chǎn)線每月只能生產(chǎn)33臺。 在制造業(yè)方面，中國無可匹敵。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
A Ningbo line can turnover 130 Harvesters a month against 33 for a line in Akron Ohio
China cannot be touched when it comes to manufacturing
此外，原因還在于： 寧波的生產(chǎn)線每月可以生產(chǎn)130臺收割機，而俄亥俄州阿克倫的生產(chǎn)線每月只能生產(chǎn)33臺。 在制造業(yè)方面，中國無可匹敵。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 20 )
收藏
Wouldn’t it be funny if China outsourced low end manufacturing to America? Can America compete with Bangladesh for garments? Vietnam for slippers?? Malaysia for wooden mallets???
Washington certainly seems to want that bright future for their own citizens.
如果中國將低端制造業(yè)外包給美國，豈不是很有趣嗎？美國能與孟加拉國競爭服裝制造嗎？能與越南競爭拖鞋嗎？能與馬來西亞競爭木槌嗎？？華盛頓顯然希望美國公民能擁有那樣的光明未來。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
If you remove the two advantages that China has, “Parts Sourcing” and “Amortized cost” then making in India would be cheaper even after tariffs
Or rather I must say that India should heavily invest in creating the ecosystem of Parts supply chain.
如果去掉中國的兩個優(yōu)勢：“零件采購”和“攤銷成本”，那么即便加上關(guān)稅，在印度制造會更便宜。
或者我應該說，印度應該大量投資于建立零件供應鏈的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。
That needs huge investments for many years without expecting any profits
Only a STATE can do that
You can't expect individuals to do that
China offered to bankroll India in 2018 and India kicked them away
這需要多年的巨大投資，而不能期望立即獲利。
只有國家才能做到這一點。
你不能指望個人來做這個。
2018年中國曾提議為印度提供資金支持，但印度拒絕了他們。
yes KB US can touch china in Manufacturing if and only if it Follows MY model .My model is first massive deflation on health spending using Indian Doctors and Indian medicine to cure most of the americans and cut the cartel of US Health Industry, It will free up 1.5 trillion dollar and then use that 1.5 trillion dollars to create Industrial cities for vertical integration then the SOURCING COMPONENT will reduce by a big margin , In that way they can industrialize itself up to 1970s level atleast.
是的，KB，美國只有在遵循我的模型時才能趕上中國。我的模型是首先通過利用印度醫(yī)生和印度藥物，進行大規(guī)模的健康支出通縮，治療大多數(shù)美國人，并打破美國健康產(chǎn)業(yè)的卡特爾。這樣可以釋放出1.5萬億美元，然后利用這1.5萬億美元創(chuàng)建工業(yè)城市，進行垂直整合，從而大大降低零部件采購成本。通過這種方式，他們至少能使自己的工業(yè)化水平達到1970年代的水平。
Are the Chinese workers paid as much or enough so they get a good income from it? Not in USdollars but in buying/spending power where they live?
Chinese workers having 50–60 hour work weeks encourages the thought that others in China are taking in the real profits while the workers get scraps.
中國工人的工資是否足夠高，讓他們能夠從中獲得良好的收入？不是以美元來衡量，而是以他們所在地區(qū)的購買力和消費能力來衡量？
中國工人每周工作50-60小時，這讓人覺得，其他地方的人在獲得真正的利潤，而工人們只得到了微薄的收入。
Part of my reaction is that if it’s too much talk about the high work ethics of Chinese workers and not enough talk about how it’s worth it in the way that they can also enjoy that earned wealth then… well, will the next generation wish to experience the same threadmill?
但現(xiàn)實是，中國工人的薪酬是值得的——可能不能讓他們過上像美國那樣富裕的生活，但足以讓他們在中國過上富足的物質(zhì)生活。這無疑是件好事。
我反應的一部分是，如果一直在談?wù)撝袊と说母吖ぷ鱾惱恚粔蛘務(wù)撍麄內(nèi)绾我材芟硎苓@份勞動所得的財富，那么，下一代會希望經(jīng)歷同樣的痛苦嗎？
In India cost of a combine is around 16 to 19 lakh.How many combine's cost is in the table u have shown for comparison?Is it for one combine in three countries?In India u have shown its cost is 193810 dollar means Rs86/-×193810=Rs166,67,660 which is similar to cost of 10 combines.
在印度，一臺聯(lián)合收割機的成本大約是16到19萬盧比。你在表格中顯示的成本是指多少臺聯(lián)合收割機的成本？這是指三國的每臺聯(lián)合收割機的成本嗎？在印度，你顯示的成本是193810美元，換算成86盧比每美元，就是Rs86×193810=Rs166,67,660，這個金額與10臺聯(lián)合收割機的成本相似。
It is not mechanisation or worker benefits that leads to this vast disparity in costs. The single biggest factor is differences in the purchasing power of currencies. If CNY and INR exchange prices reflected their actual purchasing power you would get very similar costs for the three countries.
導致成本巨大差異的并不是機械化或工人福利。最大因素是貨幣購買力的差異。如果人民幣和印度盧比的匯率反映了它們的實際購買力，那么三國的成本應該非常相似。
What is the source on mechanization of workforce being 40%?
If I follow correctly, it seems that this means that the majority of the industrial workforce of China work in mechanized/automated factory centers. Whereas most of the industrial workforce in the US work in smaller workshop sized factories?
關(guān)于40%的勞動力機械化來源是什么？
如果我理解正確的話，這似乎意味著中國的大多數(shù)工業(yè)勞動力都在機械化/自動化的工廠中心工作。而美國的大多數(shù)工業(yè)勞動力在較小的車間規(guī)模的工廠工作？
One can then see that not so impossible possibility, that the Red Dragon might eventually become the same the decaying Bald Eagle, labor might get expensive when that massive population/labor pool begins to plateau.
這又提出了另一個問題。機械化勞動力也為老齡化的經(jīng)濟為自動化做好了準備，幫助緩解勞動力成本的增加。
可以看出一個并非不可能的情形，即中國可能最終會像美國一樣，勞動力成本變得昂貴，當那個龐大的勞動力人口開始達到峰值時。
We had a huge temporary shutdown on the ports and other operations due to longshoreman unxs protesting automation and wanting other demands. Some of these people even made around 80k a year for work that barely requires high school level education. It’s no wonder that they refuse to bring more production and other work back to America.
由于碼頭工人聯(lián)合會抗議自動化并提出其他要求，我們經(jīng)歷了一次大規(guī)模的臨時停工。甚至一些人每年賺80k美元，做的工作幾乎不需要高中教育。這也就不難理解他們?yōu)槭裁淳芙^將更多的生產(chǎn)和其他工作帶回美國。
This is only true because our dumb asses allowed for this to happen!!! Greedy ass unxs always threatening to strike if pay isn't raised to the point that damn near all manufacturing was sent overseas! And don't be surprised if it happens again!!! unxs were the primary reason for the transition from USA to CHINA! unxs are licking their chops and praying for a revitalization of American manufacturing to go through this process again!
這只是真的，因為我們這些傻瓜允許這種情況發(fā)生！??！貪婪的工會總是威脅要罷工，如果薪水沒有提高到足夠的水平，幾乎所有的制造業(yè)都被外包到海外！別驚訝，如果這種情況再次發(fā)生！?。」敲绹圃鞓I(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移到中國的主要原因！工會正在摩拳擦掌，祈求美國制造業(yè)的復興再次經(jīng)歷這個過程！
To add to the answers point of increasing mechanize manufacturing in China: China has become by far the biggest user of industrial robots in manufacturing. And it’s still growing. About 35–40% of the worlds industrial robots go to China.
That means, even if US would use more automated manufacturing to reduce cost: China already is far ahead in that
為了補充之前關(guān)于中國機械化制造的回答：中國已經(jīng)成為全球使用工業(yè)機器人最多的國家，而且仍在增長。全球大約35%到40%的工業(yè)機器人都流向中國。
這意味著，即使美國使用更多的自動化制造來降低成本，中國也已經(jīng)遠遠走在前面。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Chinese workers are more hardworking, disciplined, skillful and intelligent compared to the average American worker . Chinese are the smartest race in the world with the highest IQ.
中國工人比普通美國工人更加勤勞、紀律性強、技術(shù)熟練且聰明。中國人是世界上最聰明的種族，擁有最高的智商。
A few questions, if I may.
Are those wage figures accurate? And, how do they compare to food prices? I'm fairly sure Americans don't have insurance paid by the boss, it comes out of the workers pocket.
The “parts sourcing” value: where are these parts from? There's not that much they can get from American companies.
我有幾個問題，如果可以的話。
那些工資數(shù)據(jù)準確嗎？它們與食品價格相比如何？我敢肯定，美國人并不是由老板支付保險，而是從工人自己口袋里扣除的。
“零部件采購”部分：這些零部件來自哪里？美國公司能提供的零部件并不多。
Well, the search engines of the internet are saying it is because of:
Global Supply Chains………because many supply chains originated from Asia.
Automation…advances in automation are already in the Asian countries.
Low-Cost Countries……other than China, many other Asian countries are competing with China by offering their lowest wage demands to global companies that were formerly in China.
嗯，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的搜索引擎說這是因為： 全球供應鏈……因為許多供應鏈源自亞洲。
自動化……自動化的進展已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)在亞洲國家。
低成本國家……除了中國，許多亞洲國家通過提供最低的工資要求，正在與中國競爭，吸引曾經(jīng)在中國的全球公司。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Infrastructure and Expertise…….China has all the building of manufacturers and China already has manufacturing expertise that the United States cannot replicate.
消費者偏好……因為美國人希望產(chǎn)品價格便宜，他們不在乎產(chǎn)品是否在亞洲制造。
基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和專業(yè)知識……中國已經(jīng)建立了完善的制造基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，并且中國已有制造專業(yè)知識，這是美國無法復制的。
My last job was managing a big manufacturing operation that included the company’s primary warehouse/distribution center that stocked a line of products made in a Chinese partner’s factory. Their transfer costs wouldn’t even cover my plant’s materials if made here in the U.S. not including labor and overhead like transportation, SG&E. Thus began my quest to understand this quandary.
我之前的工作是管理一個大型制造業(yè)務(wù)，其中包括公司主要的倉儲/分銷中心，存放在中國合作伙伴工廠生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品。他們的轉(zhuǎn)運成本甚至不足以覆蓋我工廠的材料費用，更別提人工和運輸、銷售管理等費用了。這讓我開始著手理解這個難題。
美國及大多數(shù)西方公司，采用我所稱的分層供應鏈模型。在一個公司的生產(chǎn)供應鏈中，可能有數(shù)十家企業(yè)，每個企業(yè)都必須支付自己龐大的管理、銷售、營銷、技術(shù)、生產(chǎn)組織費用，并且仍然需要盈利以滿足股東的要求。中國則以“中國產(chǎn)業(yè)公司”方式運作，就像我們19世紀的“強盜資本家”那樣運作。他們只需要覆蓋生產(chǎn)各個階段的成本，同時在總銷售額上獲得可接受的投資回報率，并幾乎沒有我們西方所面臨的那種高昂的監(jiān)管成本。中國通過煤電來運行他們的能源密集型產(chǎn)業(yè)，而我們這里的無知政客卻在關(guān)閉我們的煤電廠。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
中國燃燒了全球53%的煤炭消費量，是美國的7到8倍，并且每周都會批準建設(shè)三座新的煤電廠，依據(jù)2023年能源與清潔空氣研究中心的報告。2022年中國批準建設(shè)了168個燃煤單元，而拜登政府則迫使美國關(guān)閉了另外75個煤電廠。如果有人認為重工業(yè)（消耗大量能源的制造業(yè)）會回到美國，那是不太可能的，因為拜登政府的煤炭政策導致我們電力成本飆升。
Nicholas Thwaites
Because as China became more expensive, the manufacturing moved to somewhere that was cheap like Vietnam or Cambodia or somewhere rather than a country that was still expensive like the USA.
因為隨著中國變得越來越貴，制造業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移到了像越南、柬埔寨這樣便宜的地方，而不是像美國這樣的昂貴國家。
Largely because Chinese workers are paid substantially substantially less than American workers. Substantially. You can cut off a few subtantiallies and it's still substantially cheaper to manufacture things in China. Check back in 50 years.
主要是因為中國工人的工資遠低于美國工人。差距非常大。即使去掉一些“非常”，在中國制造的成本仍然遠遠低于美國。50年后再看看。
Wages are only one factor. China has invested heavily in automation. That is why they dominate manufacturing. It isn’t wages.
US companies waste their profits on stock buybacks that primarily enrich their executives instead of investing in their future. Their inability to compete is a product of the personal greed of their management not unfair competition.
工資只是一個因素。中國在自動化方面進行了大量投資。這就是它在制造業(yè)中占主導地位的原因，這與工資無關(guān)。
美國公司將利潤浪費在股票回購上，這主要是為了讓高管富裕起來，而不是投資未來。他們無力競爭的原因在于管理層的個人貪婪，而非不公平競爭。
Despite the rise, Chinese wages are still way lower than those in the US.
If Chinese wages rise, foreign companies may prefer to shift to other low wage countries, not to the US.
盡管中國的工資上漲，但仍然遠低于美國的工資。如果中國工資繼續(xù)上漲，外國公司可能更愿意轉(zhuǎn)移到其他低工資的國家，而不是美國。
While rising wages in China have made it less of a low-cost manufacturing hub than in the past, several other crucial factors have prevented a large-scale return of manufacturing to the United States:
盡管中國的工資上漲使其不再像過去那樣是一個低成本的制造中心，但一些關(guān)鍵因素仍然阻止了制造業(yè)大規(guī)?；亓鞯矫绹?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Established Supply Chains: China has built incredibly complex and efficient supply chains over decades. Many components and raw materials are readily available and cost-effectively sourced within China or neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Replicating these intricate networks in the US is a significant undertaking.
Agglomeration Effects: Industries tend to cluster together, creating specialized knowledge, infrastructure, and labor pools. Moving production back to the US would require rebuilding these clusters, which takes time and investment.
制造生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的復雜性：
已建立的供應鏈： 中國幾十年來建立了非常復雜且高效的供應鏈。許多組件和原材料可以在中國或鄰近的東南亞國家中以成本效益高的方式獲得。要在美國復制這些復雜的網(wǎng)絡(luò)是一個巨大的工程。
集聚效應： 行業(yè)往往會聚集在一起，形成專業(yè)的知識、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和勞動力池。將生產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)回美國需要重建這些集群，這需要時間和投資。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Reduced Labor Dependence: Modern manufacturing is increasingly reliant on automation and advanced technologies. While rising wages in China make labor costs less of a dominant factor, the initial capital investment in automation can be substantial in the US.
Focus on Skilled Labor: Reshoring often requires a skilled workforce to operate and maintain advanced machinery. The US faces a shortage in certain skilled trades, making large-scale reshoring challenging.
自動化與技術(shù)：
減少對勞動的依賴：現(xiàn)代制造業(yè)越來越依賴自動化和先進技術(shù)。盡管中國的工資上漲使得勞動力成本不再是主導因素，但在美國，自動化的初期資本投資可能是相當巨大的。
注重技能勞動力：重新帶回生產(chǎn)通常需要一支能夠操作和維護先進機械的熟練勞動力。美國在某些技術(shù)工種上面臨勞動力短缺，這使得大規(guī)模的生產(chǎn)回流變得具有挑戰(zhàn)性。
Regulatory Environment: Businesses often cite the regulatory environment in the US (environmental regulations, labor laws, etc.) as more complex and costly than in some other countries.
Infrastructure: While the US has developed infrastructure, certain areas may require upgrades to efficiently support large-scale manufacturing.
Energy Costs: Energy costs can fluctuate and may be higher in some parts of the US compared to China.
Proximity to Markets: For goods destined for Asian markets, manufacturing in China offers significant logistical advantages.
除工資外的其他成本因素：
監(jiān)管環(huán)境：企業(yè)常常指出，美國的監(jiān)管環(huán)境（如環(huán)境法規(guī)、勞動法等）比一些其他國家更為復雜和昂貴。
基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施：雖然美國的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施已發(fā)展完善，但某些地區(qū)可能需要升級，以有效支持大規(guī)模制造業(yè)。
能源成本：能源成本可能會波動，且在美國某些地區(qū)可能高于中國。
靠近市場：對于面向亞洲市場的商品，在中國制造具有顯著的物流優(yōu)勢。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
China's sheer manufacturing capacity is enormous. It would take significant investment and time for the US to build the infrastructure and production capabilities to replace even a portion of that output.
中國制造能力的規(guī)模：
中國的制造能力龐大。美國需要大量的投資和時間，才能建設(shè)起基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和生產(chǎn)能力，以替代中國部分的生產(chǎn)輸出。
The US economy has increasingly shifted towards higher-value manufacturing, research and development, and services. While there is some reshoring, it often focuses on advanced manufacturing that benefits from skilled labor and proximity to innovation centers, rather than simply replicating low-cost production.
美國制造業(yè)的高附加值聚焦：
美國經(jīng)濟越來越向高附加值制造業(yè)、研發(fā)和服務(wù)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型。盡管存在一定的生產(chǎn)回流，然而這種回流通常集中在能夠受益于熟練勞動力和創(chuàng)新中心地理優(yōu)勢的先進制造業(yè)，而不僅僅是復制低成本生產(chǎn)。
While trade tensions and tariffs have prompted some companies to consider diversifying their supply chains, the fundamental economic advantages of China's manufacturing ecosystem still hold for many.
地緣政治和貿(mào)易因素：
盡管貿(mào)易緊張局勢和關(guān)稅政策促使一些公司考慮多元化其供應鏈，但中國制造生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的基本經(jīng)濟優(yōu)勢仍然對許多企業(yè)具有吸引力。
總結(jié)： 盡管中國工資上漲削弱了其成本優(yōu)勢，但選擇在哪里制造是一個復雜的決策，涉及多個因素，不僅僅是勞動力成本。中國成熟的供應鏈、規(guī)模、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施以及其他成本考慮，使其依然對許多制造商具有吸引力。生產(chǎn)回流到美國的趨勢在某些行業(yè)中正在發(fā)生，但這是一個逐步的過程，受到多種經(jīng)濟和戰(zhàn)略因素的影響。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
In capitalist economics, for goods that cannot be strongly differentiated by quality or brand, there is no difference between having a product $5 cheaper, and having a product $10 cheaper.
Cheapest wins.
在資本主義經(jīng)濟中，對于那些質(zhì)量或品牌無法明顯區(qū)分的商品來說，產(chǎn)品便宜5美元和便宜10美元沒有區(qū)別。最便宜的贏。