Reminder: Trump announced his China tariffs on April 10th.

It takes 30 days for a container ship from Shenzhen to arrive on the US west coast, 45 days to the east coast.

The supply chain shock will therefore really get started around May 10th and intensify through the month, reaching its peak around the beginning of June, as factories fall idle, warehouses empty, truckers are laid off, and supermarket shelves become barren …

So China won't budge before the 10th.

Why would they?

@cstross I’m curious why you envisage a supply chain shock. The supply chain will be intact, surely? It’s just that a lot of goods are going to cost a heck of a lot more.

@bodhipaksa @cstross During COVID, car companies canceled their chip orders for a couple months, causing about 2 years of complete chaos on the car market, with used car prices only recently returning to normal.

In this case, it’s literally every single raw material, part, tool, or item made in China.

@kalleboo @bodhipaksa There's a factory town in China that makes screws. Literally ANY screw you can imagine, in any gauge, in ridiculous quantities, for very litle money. Consequently nobody in the USA makes screws any more. Or injection molds. Or LCD displays, or PV panels, or tires. Repeat ad nauseam. And if you want to start making tires in the USA? You need molds, and they're held together with screws, and the line SCADA controllers probably have LCD status displays …

@cstross @kalleboo Interesting, and not reassuring. What a fragile system.

If biology functioned like the global economy, you'd have to be airlifted to intensive care every time you skipped lunch.

@bodhipaksa @kalleboo Efficient systems are fragile, by definition they don't have a lot of resiliency. For the past 40-50 years we've been increasingly building systems for efficiency, not resiliency. This bit us on the ass in 2020-2022 but THE LESSONS WERE NOT LEARNED.

(Sorry, was on a discussion panel on Monday and another participant reported a positive COVID test in Wednesday: nobody was masked, LESSONS WERE NOT LEARNED cuts a bit close to the bone today.)

@cstross @bodhipaksa @kalleboo Well the decision on building for resilience or efficiency should always boil down to use case right?
@bodhipaksa @cstross @kalleboo and in this metaphor we haven’t skipped lunch, we’ve bought in to some 30-day “cleanse” we heard about on TikTok.

@bodhipaksa @cstross @kalleboo Beyond 80/20, efficiency and resilience directly trade off with each other. Idle resources waiting to satisfy a demand vs queued demand waiting for a resource.

A system optimized for "efficiency" had no duplicate performers of any function. Everything is a single point of failure, and that single performer is an Indy 500 racecar needing a full pit crew and methanol fuel.

A _fully_ efficient system stops being effective: you 80/20 the userbase you serve.

@landley @bodhipaksa @kalleboo Correct: but the problem is, to the C-suite, making that allowance for resilience is wasted money that could go into stock buy-backs or their bonuses. Such as Boeing charging extra to fit a second Angle-of-Attack sensor to the 737-MAX. (The lack of which caused the two MCAS-related crashes that killed 346 people.)
@cstross @bodhipaksa @kalleboo Torches and pitchforks are an externality.

@cstross @landley @bodhipaksa @kalleboo

There are only 3 business books for which I have any respect at all.

One of them is Tom DeMarco's _Slack_, which has this exact matter as its subject.

An overly efficient system has no slack: it cannot respond to changing demands, it burns out its workers, it cannot take the time to innovate, and is just generally fragile.

The book's lesson is a generation old now. But it appears most corporate managements (and, apparently, governments) have adamantly *refused* to learn the lesson. Even after COVID-19 provided a brutal illustration, as it did with so many other lessons.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Slack/3AuP7HV14SYC?hl=en&gbpv=0

Slack

To most companies, efficiency means profits and growth. But what if your “efficient” company—the one with the reduced headcount and the “stretch” goals—is actually slowing down and losing money? What if your employees are burning out doing the work of two or more people, leaving them no time for planning, prioritizing, or even lunch? What if you’re losing employees faster than you can hire them? What if your superefficient company is suddenly falling behind?Tom DeMarco, a leading management consultant to both Fortune 500 and up-and-coming companies, has discovered a counterintuitive principle that explains why efficiency improvement can sometimes make a company slow. If your real organizational goal is to become fast (responsive and agile), then he proposes that what you need is not more efficiency, but more slack. What is “slack”? Slack is the degree of freedom in a company that allows it to change. It could be something as simple as adding an assistant to a department, letting high-priced talent spend less time at the photo copier and more time making key decisions. Slack could also appear in the way a company treats employees: instead of loading them up with overwork, a company designed with slack allows its people room to breathe, increase effectiveness, and reinvent themselves.In thirty—three short chapters filled with creative learning tools and charts, you and your company can learn how to:∑make sense of the Efficiency/Flexibility quandary∑run directly toward risk instead of away from it∑strengthen the creative role of middle management∑make change and growth work together for even greater profitsA innovative approach that works for new- and old-economy companies alike, this revolutionary handbook will debunk commonly held assumptions about real-world management, and give you and your company a brand-new model for achieving and maintaining true effectiveness—and a healthier bottom line.

Google Books
@weekend_editor @cstross @bodhipaksa @kalleboo A department with work for 1.5 people that employs 3 can afford to lose one, and half an employee's time to train a replacement. If it only has 2 and loses one, the remaining employee falls ever further behind and has no time to train anyone new.
@landley @weekend_editor @bodhipaksa @kalleboo Rule of thumb: if you have a 40 hour work week with 4 weeks vacation per year (UK normal), then you need to employ 5 people per 4 jobs, otherwise you'll be short-handed most of the time (Each of those 4 jobs requires vacation and sick leave coverage). Never mind what if someone's pregnant or someone else leaves or has a stroke or something. "Lean" operations mean being permanently on the edge of failure.
@landley @bodhipaksa @cstross @kalleboo Seems like there's a class of company whose business model reduces to "consume the resiliency of a society for profit".

@landley @bodhipaksa @cstross @kalleboo

100% this.

The reason the world has been able to shift toward an on-demand economy is that suppliers have become extremely reliable, allowing consumers to simply assume raw goods will be available and shift toward efficiency.

When someone throws a wrench in the works, that assumption breaks down - fast. As the world will be finding out for the next year. Stock prices are just the beginning of the damage done.

@tbortels @landley @bodhipaksa @cstross @kalleboo As someone who learned for work reasons the Lean methodology and the role "just-in-time" plays into it, <after> the hit of the pandemic, I understood <a lot> about what went wrong.

@landley @bodhipaksa @[email protected] @kalleboo espechally when the requirements for "efficiency" are contradicting each other.

I.e. you can't have a compact car that costs <€10k brand new, barely sips fuel and fits tiny, low roof parking garages yet seats 8 passengers next to the driver comfortably and tows a 7,5t gooseneck trailer up a 20% gradient from standstill whilst at it.

  • Define your target goals first, then choose the best option to get you there.

Even if that means one has to scrap goals early on...