Is There Any Theoretical Basis For Trump To Shift The Shoe Industry Back To The US?

During the election campaign, US President trump said he wanted to move the shoe industry back to the United States.

The daughter's shoes were not produced in the United States, which caused an uproar in the media.

That's a lot. We just want to discuss today. Is there any theoretical basis for trump to move the shoe industry back to the United States? Or is he talking nonsense for the sake of votes? Let's look at the analysis of the global industrial pfer path of shoes and manufacturing industries.

Face the truth of the industry and see clearly.

Future.

Understand the four major road map of the global shoe industry, and two tit for tat theory.

It should be understood that trump needs to move the shoe industry back to the United States.

What are we going to do?

The global shoe industry's four major pfer path analysis shows that there are four large-scale industrial pfer events in the world:

The first time: in 50s, the United States shifted traditional industries such as footwear to Japan and Germany.

The second time: from 60 to 70s, Japan and Germany pferred Asia's "four dragons" and some Latin American countries to labor intensive industries such as footwear.

The third time: in early 80s, developed countries such as Europe, America and Japan and Asian "four dragons" were pferred to developing countries.

Since 90s, China has gradually become the largest undertaking and beneficiary of the third world industrial pfer.

The fourth time: of course, what has happened and is happening to Southeast Asia, Africa and other places.

The pfer routes of these four pfers are: pfer from developed countries to developing countries, and from technology leading countries to countries with relatively backward technology.

The general trend is: shift from the high labor cost area to the low labor cost area.

During this period, the profit of manufacturing sector is very low.

In 1992, Stan Shih, founder of Taiwan Acer group, put forward "

Theory.

The curve of smile shows that the value of the curve is high on both sides of the curve, and the profit space is large. However, the processing, assembling and manufacturing of the middle arc bottom of the curve are not high in technology, low in added value and meager in profit.

In the past 20 years, the smile curve theory has been recognized by the industry along with the development of Acer. It has even become the development philosophy of many enterprises in Taiwan and Mainland China.

The smile curve has become a guiding principle for China's manufacturing to China.

A successful case is HUAWEI.

In the human resource allocation of HUAWEI, technical research and development personnel account for 46%, marketing and service personnel accounted for 33%, management and other personnel accounted for 9%, and the remaining 12% are production personnel.

In the past 20 years, HUAWEI has maintained such a proportion, and the human resource allocation has shown a "Smiling Curve" of "high R & D and high market".

Tit for tat's "Musashi curve" is now in progress.

In 2004, Nakamura Maihiro, director of the SONY Village Research Institute in Japan, put forward the "Musashi curve" which is completely contrary to the smile curve. He thought that the real most profitable source of profit was in "manufacturing".

Nakamura Maihiro found that when manufacturing links were more prominent in the value contribution of enterprises and monopolistic advantages, the process of assembly and manufacturing had higher profits, while the profits of parts, materials and sales and services were lower.

For such manufacturing enterprises, the effective way to maintain high profits is to raise the level of enterprise management and reorganize production management mode.

The two theories have their realistic results to support their arguments. Who is right or who is wrong? Personally, I believe that no one is right or wrong. In the early days of reform and opening up, it was a time to make money if only production could be made.

Because our enterprise management level is not high, science and technology is not very developed, resulting in "manufacturing" the profits are far from being reflected.

So the smile curve is right.

At present, with the progress of science and technology, automated production,

With the advent of production, the cost will be greatly reduced and the efficiency will increase exponentially.

Adidas returned to Germany, Reebok returned to the United States, and trump needed to move the shoe industry back to the United States, and finally found a strong theoretical basis.

The difference between the two theories is that the stage of manufacturing development is different, so there are different conclusions.

When the cost of using robots is reduced and robots are more economical to replace manpower, the trajectory may be reversed, and the manufacturing sector will be partially returned to the United States.

However, because many manufacturing industry chains are in China, it is difficult to pfer them all.

One of the main directions of future pformation and upgrading of these huge capacity is automation.

With the rapid growth of domestic automation market demand.

This may be the opportunity for China's footwear industry.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.