Illniyar
a day ago
The article headline makes it seem like the factories couldn't make the gloves.
But further down it says that the cost was double and factories couldn't get buyers.
These are very different failure modes, and speak to very different solutions.
reactordev
a day ago
One sounds incapable from a skill perspective, the other is incapable from a market perspective. I’ll take the later over the former any day.
samsolomon
a day ago
Agree. The problem is over extended lengths of time the people with the skills to make these things—or make tools that make them—will leave the workforce.
That's how this goes from being a market issue to a skill issue.
stingraycharles
a day ago
The later form was part of the design from the beginning: relying on imports for something this critical in times of an epidemic was a supply chain risk. It was never intended to compete in terms of pricing.
It baffles me that this wasn’t made more explicit? That seems to be the root cause of the failure.
SanjayMehta
a day ago
Once the epidemic was over, stakeholders forgot about the original motives.
wrs
a day ago
Also, the stakeholders decided the epidemic was a hoax in the first place.
shimman
a day ago
Good thing the country isn't run by shareholders.
Note that a federal jobs program has something like 60-80% support by voters across all political spectrums in the USA.
reactordev
5 hours ago
oh but it is... oh but it is.
croes
a day ago
If the price is too high you aren’t skilled enough to make them cheaper
cucumber3732842
a day ago
Or free enough. All that civil engineering, permitting, compliance checkbox BS has to be amortized over the stuff the factory makes.
croes
18 hours ago
Foreign made medical gloves have the same compliance to fulfill
zbentley
5 hours ago
They really, really don’t. I’m sympathetic to the goal of moving manufacturing stateside, but fixing regulatory hurdles needs to happen first.
Just because a foreign glove manufacturer has to comply with the same safety/quality standards for their product only scratches the surface. Domestic companies also have to operate compliant with regulations regarding hiring, real estate, safety, finance, and many more.
To be clear, a lot of those regulations (most of them!) achieve good things and should be preserved! Working/environmental/low-corruption conditions in the US (though they could be better) are often superior to those same conditions in the places we import from precisely because of those regulations. But not all regulations (even those with good goals) are effective, others are not worth the burden, and all of them in aggregate do directly contribute to domestic manufacturing loss. It’s a hard problem that others (e.g. Pahlka) have written about much more wisely than I can.
quotemstr
a day ago
Over time, the latter becomes the former.
reactordev
a day ago
Only for a time until the market conditions improve. Humans are incredibly talented and we have a knack for picking up skills.
quotemstr
a day ago
I wish it were so. It's not.
For an object-level example, look at the difficulties the Russians had reconstituting their industrial base in the post-apocalyptic wasteland they found themselves after the 90s. It took them a decade to figure out how to restart production of the Tu-160M bomber, and they had all the original blueprints! Likewise, for a while, we forgot how to make this "FOGBANK" substance that's somehow important for nuclear weapons.
It's all too easy to forget how to do something if you stop doing it for a while.
reactordev
a day ago
And then you pick it back up. Yes, you will get rusty or need to train up but that’s better than lacking the technological capability.
iamnothere
16 hours ago
The main thing is to ensure you can continue to produce the machine tools, electronic components, and precision equipment needed to service each major industry. And the domestic engineering talent to run them. This allows you to add capacity quickly if self-sufficiency is needed.
Oh, and you also need to secure stable supply chains.
(We may be in trouble here)
trebligdivad
a day ago
That might have been a bargain if you could have done it during peak Covid. Having the capability to make them is worth a lot in resilience.
brianwawok
a day ago
Who’s paying to bring online a factory that sites idle just in case? Are you also paying workers to sit there idle?
trebligdivad
a day ago
Well I wouldn't pay for it to be idle; if you want to ensure you have the ability to do it, then you buy some proportion of it's potential output at their increased costs; but while that's happening you work on all the reasons it's more expensive.
michaelmrose
a day ago
The logical thing is that the government buys them continually at the higher price which justifies the existence of the factory with the requirement that it is made here and if this is not sufficient motivation you make buying something more buying something profitable contingent
kaikai
21 hours ago
Like the Jones act but for gloves
wbl
a day ago
Or stockpile a two year supply. You can get a lot with a billion dollars.
hn_throwaway_99
a day ago
These things expire you know, for latex gloves it's only 3 years.
chronogram
a day ago
The US already has their Strategic National Stockpile for medicines.
Shorter expirations are managed by constantly selling the old to the domestic industry and purchasing new, like China does for grain and frozen meat while simultaneously being able to keep the market more stable by selling high and buying low. Switzerland has a lot of stockpiles, even including coffee[0], which the companies also go through FIFO.
0: "The 15 big Swiss coffee retailers, roasters and importers, such as Nestlé, are required by law to store heaps of raw coffee. Together, these mandated coffee reserves amount to about 15,000 tonnes—enough for three months’ consumption. The government finances the storage costs through a levy on imports of coffee. All 15 companies are in favour of maintaining the coffee reserve—as long as they are paid for it." Economist 2019
hn_throwaway_99
a day ago
To be clear, I think a plan like that makes a ton of sense, because the only costs you have are the ongoing storage and admin costs, and in the grand scheme of things a big warehouse to store a 6 month rotating supply of PPE would have huge potential benefit and would also be a rounding error compared to things like the Iran war. I was just objecting to the idea that you buy "a billion dollars" worth of gloves because that's not a sensible or sane solution.
skybrian
a day ago
You could rotate the inventory. Normally companies try to minimize inventory, but someone could pay them to keep six month’s or a year’s supply as a buffer.
manarth
a day ago
It depends on the rationale. If the intent is self-reliance in the event of a trade war (or worse) with China, then even a year's buffer isn't enough to bootstrap home manufacturing from scratch.
It needs to be in-service and available before any serious conflict.
skybrian
a day ago
Maybe, combined with a buffer, there need to be plans in place to get a factory up and running in six months? Or it could be running at a low level with plans to scale in six months.
b112
a day ago
Stockpiles of masks and gloves where maintained in Canada, and I believe the US after SARS.
But a year before COVID, these warehouses were shut down, as the stockpiles were old, and needed a refresh, and politicians didnt see the need to spend tens of millions on new stockpiles.
The has happened several times over the last 100 years.
michaelmrose
a day ago
Republicans didn't see the need to be precise
fooo1882992
4 hours ago
In California they were set up by Schwarzenegger and dismantled by Jerry Brown in 2011 to save 1.7 million per year.
“When the Department of Finance was looking at this, they asked a question: ‘How many times have the mobile field hospitals been used since we bought them?’ ” he said. “That was the same question they asked (the Public Health Department). ‘You’re not using it, why do we have it?’ ”
https://revealnews.org/article/california-created-a-massive-...
dude187
a day ago
Seems the decision to deprioritize n95s was done by the Obama administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_National_Stockpile
michaelmrose
20 hours ago
This is a congressional decision not a presidential obe and it was done after the dems lost the majority because of the incllination towards austerity that always develops when a dem is president. Would you like to go over exactly what republican votes led to this?
dude187
31 minutes ago
Yes, please do so. Because there's plenty of Democrat majority Congresses in that time range that chose to not renew the supply
natbennett
7 hours ago
Headlines and articles are typically written by different people with different goals.
FrankyHollywood
a day ago
Exactly, the article also mentions "Only about 1% of those used in the US are made domestically".
It's already being done so it seems more a cost related issue than lack of knowledge.