"N2EY" wrote

How do you determine "best value"?

Depending on the product it can be a variety of things, sometimes a very
complex mix of parameters determines "value". My factory purchases
products of many different types, complexities, which they range from pure
"commodities" like solder to specialty products like custom chips, plastic
moldings, and similar "proprietary" materials which find there way into our
finished goods.

Obviously price factors into the mix, and all other things being equal,
price wins.

But "all other things" are almost never equal. For example, some suppliers
have earned "dock to stock" status with us because their outgoing quality
control is good enough that we do not have to perform incoming quality
control. This saves us money (inspection labor) and time (no delay in
inspection) so we favor such suppliers even if they may charge slightly
higher prices, and they benefit by earlier payment because their invoice is
not held pending QA acceptance of their product. Other favorable factors
would be their willingness to deal with us on a "consigned inventory" basis,
shield us from part shortage allocations, and similar "pipeline" issues.
Suppliers with a "track record" are generally favored over "new guys", but
new guys who can demonstrate "value added" (which can be a host of things)
will certainly be given some business to prove their case. Within reason,
we will favor enterprises "close to home" because we feel an obligation to
contribute to the communities where we live and work, and there is an
obvious advantage to dealing with a supplier who you can quickly meet for
lunch to discuss issues, rather than by telecommunications or strapping a
757 to your ass for several hours.

As you can see, "best value" encompasses many factors and issues beyond the
actual physical product which you touch and feel.

Does it include things like whether the producers used
environmentally-friendly processes, the working
conditions of the workers who actually make the product,
etc.?

No ethical company would ignore those issues. Certainly we will not
knowingly deal with suppliers who pollute the environment or mistreat their
workers, but we are not staffed with EPA-like or OSHA-like inspectors and
evaluators In cases where we are qualifying a new significant new
supplier, we perform on-site evaluations which give us some visibility
of working conditions, etc., but it is naturally not an in depth review of
their HR practices, or validating their compliance with EPA standards.
Were we a huge conglomerate like General Motors or IBM, I'm sure
we'd have more formal means of dealing with this issue, but in the
meantime they obviously are subject to the usual state, federal,
provincial (or whatever) regulatory constraints. We make a special
effort in the area of supplier diversity, and support many regional
Supplier Diversity Councils, such as Chicago Minority Business
Development Council, Dallas/Ft. Worth Minority Business Development
Council, Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Minnesota
Minority Supplier Development Council, Virginia Regional Minority
Supplier Development Council, Southern California Regional
Purchasing Councils, Inc., and others. This context includes woman-owned
or veteran-owned enterprises.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Wasn't that much more the result of our own import
tariffs, significantly increased in the 80's to "protect"
companies like Chrysler from foreign competition?

Nope. It was a result of two things. One, the US automakers
buckled down and reduced their production costs to be
competitive. Secondly in the case of Japanese automobiles,
the Japanese government quit subsidizing car production when
their automakers succeeded in obtaining a significant
percentage of the US market (their government then put the
money into subsidizing other industries they wanted to get off
the ground). Once that happened the prices of Japanese cars
rose. The net result was that US and Japanese automakers
were now on a "level playing field" (snip)


I don't understand. Does the U.S. collect tariffs on imported foreign
products? If so, how can U.S. and Japanese automakers possibly be on a
"level playing field" if everything else you say above (no subsidies in
Japan) is true? Japanese automakers have the added burden of shipping
vehicles from Japan and the added costs of the import tariffs. They were
obviously willing to absorb the extra shipping costs prior to the increase
in tariffs during the 80's. So, with all that in mind, it appears the
tariffs is actually what drove a few Japanese automakers to build cars
here.


Let me make this as plain as possible. At one time (prior to the 1980s),
the Japanese government actually gave Japanese automakers money from
government coffers so that the automakers could sell their product at a
price less than it actually cost to get it to market. The goal was to
penetrate the market. Once they penetrated it, they believed that they
could hold a significant share of it as the consumers would be used to
buying their product. Once they penetrated the market, the Japanese
government classified autos as a mature industry and quit subsidizing it.
Once the automakers had to make profits without the benefit of subsidies,
the US companies were able to compete and the Japanese found that they
needed to have manufacturing sites in the US to continue to stay in the
market. The tariffs were never high enough to make much difference in the
situation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives
us a powerful tool to find other sources. The problem
is that you may have to wait for the item, and pay
more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).


But I shouldn't have to do that, Jim. I don't think a quality fan should
be an esoteric item requiring a nation-wide search. Yet that is exactly the
case. And this was only one example - I run into similar situations just
about every day of the week. By the way, the fans are purchased locally
because that's in the contract.


Because whether such ideas work or not is largely
dependent on those details.


I wasn't aware we were here to make a particular idea work. This is a
general discussion in a newsgroup. Anything more than that would require
considerable time (which I place a high value on) and a research &
development budget (which I haven't seen anyone offer).


Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market
economy is being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.


Again, shoppers are going to the store to ponder the global economic
implications of the purchases they make. It is absurd to even expect them to
do so (see my next paragraph below).


Then they should not complain when the hardware store
and the American power tool plants shut down, quality
degrades, unemployment rises, etc.


Jim, short of setting up a dictatorship, you're never going to get even a
significant portion of the 280 million people in this country to shop the
way you want. Consumers in general have neither the business awareness or
economic awareness to make those types of decisions on their own. And they
also certainly don't have the time or money to fully research an industry
each time they want to go shopping for something. Business darn well knows
all that, which is exactly why they point to consumer spending as the main
cause of a poor economy. Doing so absolves business of any responsibility
for that economic situation and instead places the entire nation's economic
burden, and sole blame for a bad economy (and blame for the things you list
above), on consumers alone. Business has some responsibility in all this.
Your argument gives them a free ride when it comes to that responsibility.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Yeah..... that may be true but circumstances now have forced many to suffer
with it as a "living" wage.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

You must be living in a "fairy tale" world if yo believe this to be still
true. It is a simple fact that there is not the same type of jobs available
that were around in the 1965-1980's range of time. The changes in the
employment economy and shifts in employment trends are why. Take GM for
instance....... At least up here in the Tri- Cities and Flint, GM is
constantly cutting back, and even closing plants, not the opposite. Hell,
locally speaking, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning also have cut more than half
their workforce in the past 15 years or so.

Construction jobs around here suck, unless you hold "paper" you are nothing
and still making the under 8 dollar an hour range wage, before taxes. I can
bring up more examples if you want referring to my area if ya want.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no
attention to criticism.



And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a
living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives,
a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.
No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer
hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is
down
in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms
of
hours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a single person with no
dependents from starving and freezing if they are willing to settle for
bare
bones survival. It's never been higher than that.

The hell it is.... to get by without living almost an institutional type of
life, a person needs to work at least 65 hours a week, every week to break
even.



The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower
wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


You are not supposed to stay in a minimum wage job. You get work
experience, demonstrate your ability to be dependable, get recommendations
(i.e "he/she is a hard worker") and move on.

Pure bull****, and more proof that some people live in a fairy tale world.
Employees are expendable as toilet paper regardless of how well you are as
an employee. I know many people who would make excellent candidates as the
"employee of the year," but still get passed up, or worse yet, let go
because of the fact they were merely nothing but a number on a balance
sheet/statement.



The solution is not to mandate a higher wage but to actively seek out
these
people and get them ready to move on to the better jobs by making
training,
etc accessible.

When I was young (too long ago), I worked minimum wage jobs but I
certainly
knew that was not something I should consider doing lifelong.


Once again, fairy tale world?? Most of the people who are not high
school/college students feel the same way, but are stuck in a rut that never
seems to fill in. Yes, education is a key, but the problem there is if you
are working 60+ hours or more per week, chances are there is not
opportunities to even take these classes. Fact number two, there is
something called financial aid, but it DOES NOT cover all of the educational
expenses, which are not going to be able to come out of those "minimum"
wages.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that
person to use The Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives
us a powerful tool to find other sources. The problem
is that you may have to wait for the item, and pay
more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).


But I shouldn't have to do that, Jim. I don't think a quality fan should
be an esoteric item requiring a nation-wide search. Yet that is exactly
the
case. And this was only one example - I run into similar situations just
about every day of the week. By the way, the fans are purchased locally
because that's in the contract.


Now I see what you are doing. You are OVER reacting to any little thing
just to try and hang on to whatever concept it is you have, Dwight.
"Nationwide search?" That is hysterical! It took me less than one minute
to find that fan--and that was at the top of the search list; there were
hundreds to look at.

It took me less than 2 minutes to "happen" to look last night while I was at
Wal-Mart. Now, true, they are a nationwide outlet so you may have to travel
the nation before you find one of those stores--but they had more than one
choice of metal fans. So, don't know why you can't find 'em.


Because whether such ideas work or not is largely
dependent on those details.



I wasn't aware we were here to make a particular idea work. This is a
general discussion in a newsgroup. Anything more than that would require
considerable time (which I place a high value on) and a research &
development budget (which I haven't seen anyone offer).


'Scuse me? Surely you are basing the content of your opinions on at least
*some* kind of facts that you've either experienced or heard, or whatever,
over the course of your life. In fact, I bet I can find a comment you made
to me in this thread that lends itself to not basing my opinions from out of
thin air! And, if you wish to be a proponent of something, it's nearly
imperative that you be able to convince others why it's a good idea. Maybe
that's why your ideas flop; and why the American people don't change things
as they need to be changed.


Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market
economy is being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.

Again, shoppers are going to the store to ponder the global economic
implications of the purchases they make. It is absurd to even expect them
to
do so (see my next paragraph below).


I think you probably meant "aren't" above. And, while I don't ponder global
economic implications with every shopping experience, I certainly do a lot
of the time. I don't buy strictly "American," either. One blaring example
is that since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, I have never bought gasoline from
Exxon. Now, have researched what other companies own or are owned by Exxon?
No. It would probably frustrate the heck out of me to realize it, though.
I feel personally gratified by not buying their gasoline. I don't really do
it to make a statement to the world--but I should.


Then they should not complain when the hardware store
and the American power tool plants shut down, quality
degrades, unemployment rises, etc.


Jim, short of setting up a dictatorship, you're never going to get even
a
significant portion of the 280 million people in this country to shop the
way you want.


See Jim? Give a dog a bone and he buries it. When someone submits
something contrary to the way Dwight wants everything to be--*without*
substantiated concepts I might add--by *his* own admission--he suddenly gets
short and impatient with others.


Consumers in general have neither the business awareness or
economic awareness to make those types of decisions on their own.


So, as in real debate, let's bring this full-circle. You are stating that
consumers--presumably *American* consumers--are too lazy and/or incapable of
business or economic awareness to decide "smart" shopping decisions?! And,
just leaving that by itself, you blare out at *ME* for the idea that
immigrant workers are more willing to do the jobs of "less importance" than
most Americans will do?! Ludicrous at best.


And they
also certainly don't have the time or money to fully research an industry
each time they want to go shopping for something.


They sure do. And many do. We live in an information glut these days. If
someone can't get information they are looking for, they need to ask someone
how to find it--because it's pretty much there and it's there fairly
quickly.


Business darn well knows
all that, which is exactly why they point to consumer spending as the main
cause of a poor economy. Doing so absolves business of any responsibility
for that economic situation and instead places the entire nation's
economic
burden, and sole blame for a bad economy (and blame for the things you
list
above), on consumers alone. Business has some responsibility in all this.
Your argument gives them a free ride when it comes to that responsibility.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Oh OK. It's always going to be the corporate entity's fault. Now, speak of
liberal slinging...

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Yeah...I did. The post from you, above, makes more sense than that one did.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

That's true Dee. I gave him my opinion, (snip) and he
chose to ignore those facts also...


I didn't ignore your opinions, Kim. I read and responded to them for a
solid week. Instead, what I did was disagree with almost every one of those
opinions (after all, they were simply wrong). As for facts, I saw very
little of that from you.

Anyway, since you keep bringing up my name in your conversations with
others, it's clear you cannot accept the notion that someone might actually
disagree with you. Try to get over it and move on, Kim. Your ongoing
attempts to find solace from others now is truly not very becoming.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/