Made in America

[xXhunter47Xx]

From what I've noticed, things made in America don't tend to be of the greatest quality. Sure some stuff may be good, but for the most part it tends to cost more and is of lower quality than imported goods.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

From what I've noticed, things made in America don't tend to be of the greatest quality. Sure some stuff may be good, but for the most part it tends to cost more and is of lower quality than imported goods.

Like the output of any group of people sometimes there are problems.
I've had good luck with some stuff made in America.
Especially when I am making it America

[team222badbrad]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Yep, we make a lot of our VEX and VEXpro products in China. We also design, engineer, program, test, and kit all of those products here in Texas. If you don't purchase our products because they are not "Made in the USA" (BTW, there are very strict US rules that allow you to use that sentence on a product) , then it is your loss.

Paul

We have been saying this year that our robot is "Made in China" and "Assembled in America". We certainly kept the VexPro employees employed this year as our robot BOM has a large amount of VexPro product on it...

We have said before that would could not buy the gears we used to build our own ball shifting transmissions for the price of a complete VexPro one.

We have certainly ran in to some quality issues over the past two years with the VexPro product, but the large majority of it has been excellent. Especially the Ball Shifters.

It was very obvious this year that VexPro is providing the product that teams need even though the majority of it is made in China.

[noceradave]

For various reasons, most of the respondents of this poll agree with each other that we should continue buying large amounts of imported parts to teach robotics to future engineers. Most CEOs would agree with you, buying imported parts is generally faster and cheaper than purchasing more expensive components manufactured at America's higher wages.

CEOs can get more product out the door and thus more profit using imported parts, just like we can get more robot into the bag mirroring that same corporate approach, the same approach that outsources technology jobs. Like a flu vaccine, is the cure also a modified version of the disease? This is certainly interesting to say the least.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by noceradave

For various reasons, most of the respondents of this poll agree with each other that we should continue buying large amounts of imported parts to teach robotics to future engineers. Most CEOs would agree with you, buying imported parts is generally faster and cheaper than purchasing more expensive components manufactured at America's higher wages.

CEOs can get more product out the door and thus more profit using imported parts, just like we can get more robot into the bag mirroring that same corporate approach, the same approach that outsources technology jobs. Like a flu vaccine, is the cure also a modified version of the disease? This is certainly interesting to say the least.

You are still implying that buying parts manufactured overseas necessarily sends technology jobs away. It does not. There will always be a need for smart people to perform technology jobs everywhere. When they are performing tasks that are better suited to being done by robots or cheaper labour via outsourcing, their talent is being wasted. They could instead be advancing the technology, developing new solutions.

You seem to have a very "Detroit Three" view of how manufacturing should be done. The Japanese car manufacturers have been producing cars of similar quality to the Detroit Three for many years. By doing so more efficiently, utilizing technology to replace menial labour, and outsourcing the production of parts where it is efficient to do so, the Japanese manufacturers are consistently able to sell their cars cheaper than the Detroit Three. It is only recently that they're starting to adopt similar manufacturing models.

We have the technology today to manufacture automobiles in an almost entirely automated fashion using robots. The talents of the people assembling them in factories around the world are largely being wasted in the name of protecting their jobs.

I can only imagine the progress humanity could make if those people were being utilized to their fullest potential.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Racer26

You are still implying that buying parts manufactured overseas necessarily sends technology jobs away. It does not. There will always be a need for smart people to perform technology jobs everywhere. When they are performing tasks that are better suited to being done by robots or cheaper labour via outsourcing, their talent is being wasted. They could instead be advancing the technology, developing new solutions.

While the OP certainly hasn't provided evidence to support his assertion, neither have those who claim he's incorrect, beyond a single anecdote anyway. How about, rather than saying "no, you're wrong," someone on either side of this debate actually supports their opininos with evidence?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

While the OP certainly hasn't provided evidence to support his assertion, neither have those who claim he's incorrect, beyond a single anecdote anyway. How about, rather than saying "no, you're wrong," someone on either side of this debate actually supports their opininos with evidence?

Well,

This article shows US unemployment rate for IT workers is significantly below the overall average: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...stands_at_3.3_

This article shows a similar result for Canada: http://www.procom.ca/news/canadian-i...ployment-rate/

Those together would suggest to me that an ever-increasing outsourcing rate does not yield a loss of tech jobs in North America.

[DDSLoan96]

FIRST is no longer US FIRST, the last time they used the US FIRST moniker(wording) was the 1996 season. They haven't to my knowledge used US FIRST anywhere but the website since then

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by DDSLoan96

FIRST is no longer US FIRST, the last time they used the US FIRST moniker(wording) was the 1996 season. They haven't to my knowledge used US FIRST anywhere but the website since then

Oh really?

https://www.isek.iastate.edu/files/2...Input-form.pdf

Also, the shipping label on my mentor pin that arrived in the mail yesterday lists the return address as "US Foundation For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology".

The 501(c)(3) is the "United States Foundation For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". Has been since it was founded. They've been doing business as FIRST(R) for many years, though.

[dag0620]

Originally Posted by DDSLoan96

FIRST is no longer US FIRST, the last time they used the US FIRST moniker(wording) was the 1996 season. They haven't to my knowledge used US FIRST anywhere but the website since then

Just take a look at my earlier post. While FIRST tries there hardest to use just FIRST as much as possible, they are still legally US FIRST and occasionally have to use that name when required.

[DDSLoan96]

Yes, they use US FIRST for stuff like forms and mailing because that is the official organization name but I haven't seen them use USFIRST anywhere other than that

[Paul Copioli]

Troll much?

Don't believe me, then let's have this thread sit idle for 24 hours and see what happens.

[noceradave]

I recognize your main point that there is always opportunity for the best technologists to get jobs.

Originally Posted by Racer26

You are still implying that buying parts manufactured overseas necessarily sends technology jobs away. It does not. ....

I respectfully disagree on this point because profit does create jobs, just as lack of profit eliminates them - Detroit and Japan are also the perfect examples. Detroit is bankrupt and Tokyo is the worlds' largest city.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Troll much?

Don't believe me, then let's have this thread sit idle for 24 hours and see what happens.

I'm with you, Paul. Let's drop it. This is nonsense.