Benefits of manufacturing in India

alan white,

you are a genius. What insight you bring to the analysis of humanity and the relationships between the haves and have nots.

Tolerance.....something that is practised in the first and new world. Tolerance for jerk offs looting and burning and destabilizing their host countries. While in their country of origin good citizens scream and shout for benevolent treatment from the 'super powers'.

Tolerance for children.

By the way, a yacht made in India will be a great product for Indians.

 

Building world class yachts in India is a natural progression. So much coastline, so many talented and willing people to build them, and more and more, Indians who will buy them.

A.

 

Yeah, another Time magazine front page...

Why isnt South America the natural progression for building world class yachts?

Or China......

 

They are.

http://www.marlowexplorer.com/norsemen.htm

 

This post was drivel. I have selectively edited out the worst parts.

 

Why would I explain something I didn't say?

 

India make absalutely nothing involving quality.

They did not even make curry,-that was the British army spicing rancid meat--Indian cow meat.

What imediately springs to mind is the Royal Enfield motor cycle.

This was a British motorcycle that india now makes . Im not concerned at copyrights here.

This a piece of crap. The metal quality is so bad they the head can not be torqed to specifications.

Throttle cables, wheel bearing are a daily failure.

Can anyone think of something of quality.

Railway maintenace and management--perhaps.

 

My first intention was to comment about environmental problems, but then bhabanism's own personal pollution side tracked me.

These places have no cares about the environment and that is one of the reasons they can build so cheap. I remember an ad in Professional Boatbuilder a few years ago of a boatbuilding facility for sale in Brazil, I think, and at the top of the list of advantages and stressed throughout the ad was that there were no environmental restrictions.

Breaking up ships is an example of what countries like these allow their poor to do. You can't do it in a developed country, it's not allowed.

http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2004/040323_call_to.html

"As part of the "START Ship Recycling" campaign, Greenpeace has released shocking images, showing workers handling asbestos at yards in India.
Ships from around the world are broken up by workers, including children, without protective equipment.
Rusting hulks are pulled onto the beaches and slowly torn apart by workers paid as little as £1 a day.
As well as asbestos, the ships often contain PCBs, fuel oil and lead, and those dismantling them risk injury from falling metalwork or explosions triggered after cutting into fuel tanks."

World class yachts can possibly/probably be built in those countries but you wonder how much did the boat cost in terms of shortened, lost, or diminished lives and health of not only the workforce that built it but the general population that has to drink and breath and live in the resultant pollution of unregulated industry. Sam

 

you are 100% correct sam,,, ,,, lets not forget the profit margin of the misrerably rich,who only care about money ,,,at all cost,,,sadly,longliner

 

Those same people may very well be choosing their poison, work with risk or starve. We all do that to some degree. Education illuminates the risks, and while some will continue working at risk, at least knowing the risks is the best policy to work towards.
I've seen what Bath Iron works in Bath, Maine has done to workers and their wives who washed their work asbestos-laden clothes, and this is far from ancient history. I've been to their funerals.
It seems industry, unregulated though it has been, has built economies that provided the wealth and education that later caused those same industries to bargain for workers by making workplaces safe.
Do you have a solution? Remember, until there are international standards for industry safety, the work will all go to the lowest bidder.
But look how quickly India and China are rising economically. The rise of workplace safety will correspond with the rise of literacy and wealth.

A.

 

Ofcourse working in dangerous conditions with toxic materials is unaccepatble without the proper precausions.

Dont forget re cycling these things has to be done and it will always be to the lowest bidder.

Pehaps we should build them differently, with dismantling in mind, Oh Oh cant do that it will go over budget.

However stoping it has to be done with great care and is not as simple as shuting it down.

I have seen this before where westerners come to the east and are appaled at so called sweat shops.

Well these "sweatshops" employ children usually for thier nimble fingers. These children probably earn nothing in comparison to the west,-- but hold on a minute.

There is no social security or any financial assistance what so ever in these countries. These 12 year olds are keeping families who otherwise would have a big zero income. They want to work -love to work- and are the family heros.

Getting back to the ship breakers. If they are working for a dollar and shifting asbestos then that should be stoped now.

But thats India where mr bharbanism is advertising the 'benefits of manufacturing in India'. Mr bharbanism seems to want us all to go there and invest in this sespit of a country. He's gone very quiet now has'nt he?

India has an incredibley long way to go to keep up with the rest of the world famine deseases bathing in their own feaces contaminated water.

To them this is Ok they dont know better. The upper class do but its them and us. India is divided by them and us.

Most of the so called upper class dont ever speak their own language 'Indian',--it is below them.

Billions see movies every day to escape from this life of never ending tread mill of misery.

 

what bath done was done in ignorance to asbestos ,,we learned,,,what is the excuses from those that know now,,,,,to start with general motors ,,you cant dump heavy metals ,,or toxins outside the plant in detroit ,,so why is it ok in mexico , ,children are being poisoned NOW,, in china ,,a perfect example ( pet food) chemicals outlawed in US are ok to use there ,,,,,results,,,,,,our pets die,and what about crayons for your kids ,,and other food products?,worker in paint industryin US must have ventaltor booths,,,,do you think china mexico and india ?like Ive said before ,,the reason china and the rest have such economic growth ,,is because they simply dont care about the human element ,a blind man can see this ,,, take a good ,,good look around time to smell the coffey,,,longliner

 

No, Alan, we don't. Your use of the equivocating phrase, "to some degree", does not validate your attempting to equate the Alang shipbreaking yards with American industry.

Your intent, I'm sure, is good, but the facts don't support your statements. In the US prior to 1972 (the situation was somewhat similar in Europe, but I will limit my remarks to my own experience and direct research), the use of asbestos as thermal insulation was mandated by law because of its complete thermal resistant properties. Fire was a major hazard and mass killer in urban America; asbestos was required by laws and fire codes because it was the only available material that was fireproof as well as being able to insulate other materials from extreme heat. Following several deadly fires in theaters that started on stage and killed hundreds of people, theaters were required to have asbestos curtains. "After 1900 in most cities one could not obtain a building permit, or insurance, or a mortgage without using at least some asbestos". (Source: "Asbestos and Fire: Technological Tradeoffs and the Body at Risk", Rachel Maines, 2005) In buildings, factories, and ships asbestos was required in specifications; no substitutes were permitted.

My point, Alan, is that, contrary to what mass tort lawyers and the hysterical media would have you believe, according to all available data until the late 1950's and 1960's, asbestos produced great benefits for individuals and society, with few if any drawbacks. Even when the first potential relationships between asbestos and pulmonary problems were being discovered, it was believed in good faith by the scientific community that the proven benefit of protecting millions of people from fire justified its continued use, particulary because there was no viable substitute. At this point in time, however, governments and industry throughout the world have known the dangers of asbestos for more than 30 years and, in the US and most of Europe, have banned or limited its use and specified precautions for its handling and disposal. In India, not only do industrial leaders deliberately ignore safety, health, and pollution hazards, but government officials created the Alang zone in the 1980's specifically for shipbreaking. The government continues to lie about conditions there and to harass and threaten anyone who attempts to improve conditions.

To believe that the situation in Alang is similar to that in Bath and elsewhere in America, Australia, and Europe is, at best, extremely naiive. Despite the fact that they already have a huge economic advantage because of lower labor costs, too many governments and industrial leaders in Third World countries tolerate and encourage the abuse of their own people just to make even more money.

 

Longliner, Sam,

As you see, I agree with your thoughts. Well said.

Jack,

While I look forward to insulting you (and vice versa) in other threads; on this topic of importance I'm pleased to be standing at your side.

I find it ironic that the technology of instant communication, which makes it so easy for some governments to know about and criticize US and European government policies, also makes it very easy for them to know how to protect their own people in the workplace ..... and yet they don't. The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

Charlie

 

"To believe that the situation in Alang is similar to that in Bath and elsewhere in America, Australia, and Europe is, at best, extremely naiive. Despite the fact that they already have a huge economic advantage because of lower labor costs, too many governments and industrial leaders in Third World countries tolerate and encourage the abuse of their own people just to make even more money."

To some degree... is all I said, and it's a fact that I'm surrounded in this part of the United States by a lot of people who choose daily between economic survival and their health. They do not live as long as more well to do folks, primarily because they must continue to work even if they aren't well.
That isn't naive, nor do I imply there isn't a far worse fate available to those who toil in third world countries. Simply a matter of degree, as said, and that allows a means to empathize.
The rest, I'm assuming you agree with. Education is vital to the many workers who do not know what asbestos or trichlorethelene is.
It is true that asbestos has saved lives. It could have done so even if it were made safe, which it is now required to be. It is also a fact that american industry used asbestos for applications that were clearly unsafe for both worker and end user years after science became aware of its devastating health effects.
I personally found out only five years ago that vermiculite (a common building insulation available in hardware stores not too long ago) does the same thing as asbestos to the lungs. This has also been known for ages, though I had been wading in it only weeks before I learned of its dangers.
Nor did I know a thing about the dangers of blowing compressed air to clean brake dust when I did brake jobs as an employee when I was seventeen (1973).
Education. Most importantly, a government that is accountable for delivering scientific knowledge to the ones who pay them to do it, here and elsewhere, whether regarding the dangers of polluted water or the dangers of psycho-active drugs.
Frankly, Charlie, I find no disagreement with what you've written, except as noted. I would suggest a humanistic/environmental industry standard which, like other stamps of approval, such as UL tags, clearly states that a manufacturer verifyably ascribes to a strict standard involving worker treatment, pollution reduction, and further, uses no vendors who are not up to the same standards.
Let it be an elective standard, and the consumer can decide. Hopefully, it would catch on, and I for one would pay more for the product.

Alan