I think it can work both ways--Chinese companies in the US and vice versa--in a way that both geographies can benefit from jobs and added tax revenue. I know US companies have adjusted their business practices to do business in China. Foreign compnaies setting up in the US should expect the same--adjusting practices to meet the host country's standards. R&D centers don't produce as many jobs as manufacturing sites, but I still think the advent of Chinese compnaies entering the US could be good for the US job market.
It is quite a surprise move as there are many companies from US setting up R&D center in China, not quite the other way round. However, more jobs are created. Why not?
I reconcile with various views expressed relating to Chinese moves to set up businesses in the USA. This is foreseeable event.
I understand the sentiments surrounding Chinese business practices and quite right and legitimate too. However, can Chinese or other businesses be stopped from setting up in the USA? Provided they are accorded the same rights as other businesses; if they are slammed without given the opportunity, I think this would amount to protectionism.
The technology that set the debate in California off was an automotive battery with a sketchy patent history. China's approach to IP is vastly different from the West's--IP belongs to everyone, or the "state"--so it's not surprising the concept will run into trouble. But patent infringement is most often litigated within the region it is called into question, so if battles are fought in the US they will be on US terms. This could have some very significant implications for the entire IP debate.
I feel its secondary if these companies hire US workers, pay US taxes etc. Main issue is Illegal IP's. Its known fact that China is doing very less to curb piracy and illegal use of IP, because of which many MNC have suffered huge losses. China's philosophy is very simple, just mimic the product and sell it for cheap because they dont incuss R&D cost.
Till today we all heard about the operations of many US and European companies from China. They want to act as a place for global investment by offering many features like low cost operation, single window systems of FID etc. Up to certain extent they had succeeded also. But now they had started exploring the other options too for going global. May be they felt that the global presence is necessary for the economic growth and help to get hands on experience with the happenings in technology sector.
Apart from home land, they had already started some companies in neighboring countries like India (Huawei), Malaysia, Taiwan etc. Now they had started exploring the other parts of the world too, as a part of going globally, to establish their presence across globe. But I think, they have to suffer a lot for the survival in silicon city.
The technologies are welcomed as long as they are useful to manufacture and produce good products. It doesn't need the chinese have to set up their office in the silicon valley if they have the right technology to sell and no one can stop them if they want to set up also. The semiconductor companies are always searching for better technologies to bring down the cost of the chip manufacturing and also to improve the performance and reliability of their products.
We all know what China can do once they get into any market, they practically run everybody out.
If taxes is what California wants, they will get it, but if it is preserving the "glory" and position that Silicon Valley holds on the world stage, only time will tell the implications of Chinese infiltration into the silicon valley.
I think time has proven that what people (including Americans) want is good quality for the lowest possible price, which we all know China can deliver. So if China infiltrates the Silicon valley, and begins to offer competitive products, Silicon Valley may well soon become China Ville.
If silicon Valley is worth preserving (i guess the REE wasn't) then the matter should be handled with caution.
I think the Silicon Valley companies may be scared of these Chinese companies. So far, the major electronic giants have outsourced their production to the Chinese companies and have retained the sales functions to themselves. If the Chinese companies have a presence in the US, they can directly deal with the consumer market or other businesses and wipe out the middle-men. This may force the US based electronic companies to lose business since they won't be able to compete directly with the Chinese low-cost producers. This may be the reason companies don't want Chinese firms to have a presence in the US.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
