Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: globalization

Chinese Consumers and Fresh Apples

Reporting their 4th quarter earnings yesterday, Coach, the handbag and accessories retailer, disappointed investors when they said that US department store and factory outlet sales had slowed. They did report, though, that sales of their handbags and accessories were up by 60% in China.

Like 2 halves of a whole picture, Coach’s marketing plan for China and the description of the new Chinese consumer ideally fit together. Coach is targeting a Chinese urban consumer who is increasingly affluent and aspirational–precisely what a McKinsey Report on the 2020 Chinese consumer projects.

Here are some of McKinsey’s numbers:

Chinese Urban Households: Disposable Income/Proportion of Urban Population

Household Type:

Annual disposable income

2010

(total of 226 million households)

2020*

(total of 328 million households)

Affluent

(More than $34,000)

2%

6%

Mainstream

($16,000 to $34,000)

6%

51%

Value

($6,000 to $16,000)

82%

36%

Poor

(Less than $6000)

10%

7%

*estimated

 

Coach says that it will have 125 locations in China by the end of FY2013, that sales in China will be up by 33% to $400 million, and that “tier 2 and tier 3″ cities were exceeding their expectations. Meanwhile, McKinsey says that Chinese consumers will be more affluent, more urban, more mobile, more educated, aspirational and older at each stage of life.

With US economic growth “muted” and China’s annual growth rate predicted to be close to 8%, doesn’t it make sense that US multinationals ranging from Starbucks, the Gap and J. Crew to Coach all have China as a part of their competitive strategy?

To compare an analysis of the Chinese consumer and Coach’s business plans, you can read McKinsey’s “Meet the 2020 Chinese Consumer” here and read the transcript of the Coach 4Q 2012 investor call here. Also, this article from Reuters on the Chinese consumer was enlightening.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Panama Canal Project Facilitates World Trade.

To introduce our first international trade discussion in class, I usually ask students to check where their clothing and shoes have been made. Finding labels that say “Made in China, Made in Thailand, Made in Peru…,” they first see how trade touches them.

Then though, the surprises begin.

U.S. businesses benefit considerably. For a $70 pair of sneakers that was Made in China, a 2011 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report tells us that transport, wholesale and retail expenses involving US businesses represented 55% of the selling price. As a result, the US truck driver, the US store owner, the US wholesaler and retailer all received some income because of those Chinese sneakers.

US consumers also enjoy benefits from the “Made in China” label. In “The Fruits of Free Trade” from the Dallas Fed is a chart that conveys the trajectory of prices for traded and non-traded goods from 1997 to 2002. For traded goods like video equipment, TV sets and toys, prices plunged while the non-traded goods had price increases. On the flip side, when jobs are protected, the consumer suffers. For apparel and textiles, when trade barriers saved 168,786 jobs, the cost to consumers was $199,241 per job.

So, when 9 Senators introduce legislation to mandate “Made in the USA” Olympic uniforms, they are making a political statement but ignoring the economic realities.

Intuitively though, it is tough to grasp why legislators suggesting home industry might be harming the US economy. Nineteenth century economist David Ricardo first explained the classic defense of world trade through the law of comparative advantage. Basically, he told us to optimize world efficiency and incomes by  ”Doing what we do best and then trading for the rest.” Much more recently, in “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea,” Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman tried to explain why many people have ignored the wisdom of David Ricardo’s ideas.

To read more about the merits of free trade the Federal Reserve reports are here and here while a good bio of David Ricardo is here. You might also want to read this report from Michael Mandel that looks at how we might regain any jobs lost from trade.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Until November 6, at econlife, Mondays will be about presidential election economics.

In 2004, when President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers chairman, Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, was lambasted for saying, “… I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it’s something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run, ” politicians, left and right, distanced themselves from his position.

Fast forward to 2012. Still, no one wants to be called an outsourcer. And still we are focusing on the politics of outsourcing rather than its economics.

Here are the economics:

A call center in India or an Apple assembly plant in China are examples of  (offshore) outsourcing when firms send jobs abroad that could be done by domestic manufacturing and service workers. (Please note that here, when we refer to outsourcing, we mean offshore outsourcing.)

The Congressional Research Service tells us that the macroeconomic slowdown, not outsourcing, is primarily responsible for high unemployment.

Most economists believe that the US economy benefits from globalization. As a nation, incomes will rise, goods will be cheaper, and corporate profits will increase whenever outsourcing leads to greater efficiency for producing goods and services.

But others accurately point out that outsourcing not only means job losses but can take place on an “uneven” playing field where other nations’ subsidies unfairly attract US businesses.

The bottom line: After discussing what we do know, most research on outsourcing concludes with, “We need to know more.” No one has gathered sufficient empirical data to be sure of the specific impact of offshore outsourcing.

However, economists like Princeton’s Alan Blinder suggest that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. In the future, with a sufficiently sizable proportion of the economy potentially being outsourced, we will face a massive shift in how we do business.

Maybe that is what our presidential candidates and the media should be discussing.

Also, I hope they will remember what David Ricardo said about international trade. Explaining the concept of comparative advantage, he told us that we elevate everyone’s well-being when nations produce what they are relatively best at.

For example, what if you can teach a class skillfully or mow your lawn expertly while your neighbor can mow the lawn mediocrely or get paid minimum wage at a fast food restaurant? Then you should teach, she should mow and everyone will be better off. The reason? You sacrifice too much by not teaching when you mow and she would sacrifice too much if she earned less at her fast food job.

Varied, there is a wealth of information about outsourcing. Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw co-wrote a paper on the politics and economics of outsourcing and Princeton economist Alan Blinder, looking at “personal” and “impersonal” services and goods discussed how specific jobs might be affected when outsourcing proliferates, and the St. Louis Fed looked at Germany and outsourcing. In addition, here is a recent Congressional Research Service report and a description of the brouhaha about the Mankiw outsourcing statement when he was the CEA chair.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (4) Add a Comment

Is It Better to Outsource or Insource T-shirts?

What if the cost of producing a woman’s polo shirt is $29.57? Its manufacturers would sell it to retailers for $65.00 who then mark it up to a $155.00 selling price.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the land, labor and capital for an upscale green (sort of like Crayola’s Caribbean green crayon) polo primarily take us to France and the U.S.  Using cotton/rayon cloth from Paris, the shirt  is made in Brooklyn, NY.  Its $29.57 wholesale cost includes the fabric ($7.79), 4 buttons ($.12), labor ($11.05) and other shirt ingredients like thread ($.09).

The story of a $5.99 Walgreen’s t-shirt is very different. Told in in The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy by Pietra Rivoli,  a typical t-shirt starts as cotton in Texas. Traveling by truck or train to California, it continues moving westward until it reaches China. In China, the cotton becomes yarn which is made into cloth which is made into a t-shirt. With a “made in China” label, the t-shirt leaves China, headed for a screen printing plant in Florida. Perhaps months later, after it has been sold and worn, the shirt winds up in a used clothing bin, destined once again to travel thousands of miles to a clothing bazaar in Tanzania where it is sold.

The price the screen printer pays for the shirt? In 1998, it was $1.42–which now would be $1.96 (using the BLS inflation calculator).

The Economic Lesson

And this takes us to David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. Worldwide productivity increases when nations specialize and export the good or service for which they sacrifice the least to make.

The cost can be high when we do not listen to David Ricardo’s wisdom. At the end of a 2002 report from the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank called “The Fruits of Free Trade,” is a chart that conveys the cost of policies that save domestic jobs. For apparel and textiles, 168,786 jobs are saved. The cost though, is $33,629,000,000 or $199,241 per job. Why is the cost so high? Because consumers are paying more when there is no competition.

An Economic Question: How would you assess the cost and benefit of importing the $9.00 t-shirt from China? Of producing the $155 polo in Brooklyn?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16910_oreo.12.28.11_000016671656XSmall

Everybody in the U.S. knows that eating an Oreo is an experience. You split open the cookie, slowly swallow the filling, and then submerge its chocolate remains in your milk. At Kraft they call it, “Twist. Lick. Dunk.”

When the Oreo team brought their cookie to China in 1996, they expected that familiar enthusiastic response. Instead, sales were tepid. Consumers said the taste was too sweet and no one knew to “twist, lick and dunk.”

Taking a second look at the Chinese cookie eater, Kraft decided to redefine the Oreo experience. They made the cookie less sweet, created a cylindrical/straw-like Oreo that dipped but did not divide, and developed nonwhite fillings. With the new product, they marketed a cheaper package that more people could afford and an ad campaign that introduced the dunk in the milk concept. The result? Kraft is now #1 in China.

Here is an Oreo Wafer Stix ad.

The Economic Lesson

Being a trading nation is about more than shipping products abroad. At first it was the 18th century New England merchants who facilitated trade from home. During the 19th century, businesses like I. M. Singer & Co. (sewing machines) secured foreign patents, sold exclusive selling rights to representatives abroad and established foreign manufacturing facilities. Then, the next step was the foreign subsidiary through which the multinational firm increasingly took on the identity of its home away from home.

And that returns us to the Chinese Oreo.

An Economic Question: Which multinationals produced your Adidas sneakers, your Bic pens and your Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment