If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
jerry gitomer wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: [ really big, big snip ] If Kodak really wants to give the highest shareholder value, they should move more production off shore. I don't like this any more than most people, but it is a reality of the future. If their competitors are moving production to lower cost, higher profit regions of the world, they would be ignoring reality to not do the same. In general, what is good for profits, stock growth, and share prices, is often bad for working individuals. That is the harsh reality of the world we have created. Gordon, I am not sure that producing film in a low labor cost area offers any significant economies over producing it in upstate New York. If it were in California, there are some higher employment cost issues, though I am not completely familiar with similar issues in New York. Of course, the cost of shipping is another issue with moving off shore. The offset would need to be compared to what the average Chinese workers (for example) gets paid. My guess is that employees at Lucky Film get paid less than half of what workers in Rochester were making. Film manufacture is a process industry. Human beings thread the film base, dump chemicals in the appropriate hoppers, push the start button, and stand back and watch. Even when using high cost labor the total labor cost to manufacture the product is not significant when compared to materials costs, maintenance costs and the amortization of the manufacturing equipment. Yes, probably a limit on those. These items make the largest cost variable that individual on each machine. Either replace them with a machine where possible, or reduce that labour cost, and those are the only reductions. Recall that Kodak bought into Luck Film, so quite a bit of that equipment was already there. The chemicals are more of a shipping issue, depending upon sources of those chemicals. It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, though I would still guess that Kodak saved some expenses by buying into Luck Film in China. More than one manufacturing engineer I know has told me that due to higher maintenance and transportation costs it often costs less (for process industries) to manufacture in the United States than to manufacture in low labor cost countries. If there was no economic advantage to buying into Lucky Film, then why was that move made? Were most of the 15000 workers for Kodak in the US involved in manufacturing film? There was a direct cost savings to Kodak by eliminating those 15000 workers, and I would bet that even 15000 workers in China would not be paid at the same level, which seems to me to indicate a reduction in expenses. If the labour cost was the least issue, and costs of producing film in China were higher, or the same, then why would Kodak make such a move? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Updated! |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon Moat wrote:
paid. My guess is that employees at Lucky Film get paid less than half of what workers in Rochester were making. 1/2? I'd be impressed if they're getting 10% of the total salary [cash plus benefits] Recall that Kodak bought into Luck Film, so quite a bit of that equipment was already there. The chemicals are more of a shipping issue, depending upon sources of those chemicals. It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, though I would still guess that Kodak saved some expenses by buying into Luck Film in China. They also got better access to the Chinese market. Nick |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon Moat wrote:
paid. My guess is that employees at Lucky Film get paid less than half of what workers in Rochester were making. 1/2? I'd be impressed if they're getting 10% of the total salary [cash plus benefits] Recall that Kodak bought into Luck Film, so quite a bit of that equipment was already there. The chemicals are more of a shipping issue, depending upon sources of those chemicals. It would be interesting to see the actual numbers, though I would still guess that Kodak saved some expenses by buying into Luck Film in China. They also got better access to the Chinese market. Nick |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Even Fuji is unlikely to take Kodak. Who wants a losing public company? A "losing" company??? |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Even Fuji is unlikely to take Kodak. Who wants a losing public company? A "losing" company??? |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji probably couldn't buy Kodak for anti-trust reasons in the USA and Europe, due to the effectively controlling market share Fuji would get over film sales by buying Kodak's film biz (e.g., 75% or more?). -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TP120 Discontinued by December | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 122 | August 31st 04 04:55 AM |
Charger similar to Maha etc. Perhaps dumb followup | Bill Bannon | Digital Photography | 1 | August 29th 04 02:16 PM |