China Railway Rolling Stock Corp and MTA?

[Around the Horn]

yeah, the internet has already caused ("forced"?) us to be globally dependent. That cat is already out of the bag...

 

That being said, I don't have any sort of expertise in these kinds of things, but I get the feeling that the US job market is suffering because the market isn't modernizing. I mean we still have coal miners for christ sake...

 

Well that's another issue... It's difficult to encourage people to go into such fields if they're going to have to worry about job prospects after they graduate, so I would say that the companies complaining about shortages need to be more aggressive in recruiting in the first place and giving incentives for young folks here in the U.S. to go into those fields.  

Get kids involved and interested in science at an early age. Take them to museums, exhibits, etc etc. The only reason Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, is because he was taken on a trip to the Museum of Natural History as a child. and as they say, the rest is history...

 

It all falls back on our education system. Its focused too much on passing tests and not the natural wonder that children have... We should be focusing more on getting kids ready for adulthood and help them find their passion instead of some damn test...

[YankeesPwnMets]

Your right with the change happening so quickly I was having a conversation with a friend that's faculty at my alma mater Cal their having issues keeping up with curriculum and even having issues finding talent to teach some of the newer fields like Robotics and AI not enough people with the experience being 15 years ago this was all but non existing shy of NASA ,IBM a few research labs. So you're almost having to guaranteed tenure creating strenuous amounts for tuition. I feel this is like  a microcosm of what's going on  globally across many fields.

The problem with a field like computer science is that academia is very slow to change their curriculum but CS is a field that changes every 10 minutes. Also, by the time students graduate, the stuff they learned is probably somewhat outdated. In addition, universities teach computer science in a way that prepares them for academia, research, and grad school, not industry. I work in UI/UX for a big tech company and I care far more about a prospective candidate's attention to detail, communication skills, team skills, coding ability, etc. I could give less of a shit about their in depth knowledge of deterministic pushdown automaton or context free languages. Are they important topics? Yes. Are they important for my team? Nope. Tech is one of those fields where almost every prospective employee out of university needs a year or two of on the job skills before they are fully able to contribute. 

 

Anyways, you went to Cal? Pretty cool. I have a family member that went to Cal for his PhD. My alma mater happens to be your school's biggest rival

 

@VG8: I do 100% agree with you that there are issues in the status quo that need solving. Perhaps deals that need to be renegotiated in order to level the playing field. Free trade definitely is one of those things that is great if executed properly. I just don't believe Donald Trump is the person to solve those problems. We can agree that there are problems yet disagree to the solution. No biggie.

 

@Around the Horn: I agree. Standardized testing is poisoning the education system. We have such an inordinate amount of focus on grades that it causes students to look for ways to get by and get the grade rather than actually learn. I remember when picking my gen ed, non major classes in college, I focused more on finding professors who handed out A's like skittles rather than trying to learn. When I look at prospective candidates, as long as there are no big red flags in their academic career (1.0 GPA, multiple suspensions, etc), I care more about their intangibles and the projects that they worked on OUTSIDE of school. School assigned coding projects are boring and do nothing more than encourage mass cheating. 

[RailRunRob]

The problem with a field like computer science is that academia is very slow to change their curriculum but CS is a field that changes every 10 minutes. Also, by the time students graduate, the stuff they learned is probably somewhat outdated. In addition, universities teach computer science in a way that prepares them for academia, research, and grad school, not industry. I work in UI/UX for a big tech company and I care far more about a prospective candidate's attention to detail, communication skills, team skills, coding ability, etc. I could give less of a shit about their in depth knowledge of deterministic pushdown automaton or context free languages. Are they important topics? Yes. Are they important for my team? Nope. Tech is one of those fields where almost every prospective employee out of university needs a year or two of on the job skills before they are fully able to contribute. 

 

Anyways, you went to Cal? Pretty cool. I have a family member that went to Cal for his PhD. My alma mater happens to be your school's biggest rival

 

@VG8: I do 100% agree with you that there are issues in the status quo that need solving. Perhaps deals that need to be renegotiated in order to level the playing field. Free trade definitely is one of those things that is great if executed properly. I just don't believe Donald Trump is the person to solve those problems. We can agree that there are problems yet disagree to the solution. No biggie.

 

@Around the Horn: I agree. Standardized testing is poisoning the education system. We have such an inordinate amount of focus on grades that it causes students to look for ways to get by and get the grade rather than actually learn. I remember when picking my gen ed, non major classes in college, I focused more on finding professors who handed out A's like skittles rather than trying to learn. When I look at prospective candidates, as long as there are no big red flags in their academic career (1.0 GPA, multiple suspensions, etc), I care more about their intangibles and the projects that they worked on OUTSIDE of school. School assigned coding projects are boring and do nothing more than encourage mass cheating. 

 Hoover tower? No way ! Environmental/Civil Major moved to tech in 2004 with Apple but started with CAD out of school with Kawasaki. I agree with you wholeheartedly I've been running my own small shop for almost 5 years now. Communication and brand cultural fit is paramount for us we pride ourselves not on what we do. But why we do it Our belief in our core values . I'm looking for that quality more than anything. At this level in the game it's not what you know but how are you apply that knowledge. I'm moving a bit more into UX I've taken Chief experience role last two projects nice departure from designing data schemas. UX is the hidden gem that nobody sees I guess that's when you know you did your job correctly. 

[R10 2952]

Um no... economists argue that if a good can be produced outside at a lower price (the world price) than the United States could, then it is more efficient to import said good than it would be to produce it at home. Economists acknowledge that free trade increases consumer surplus at the expense of producer surplus, meaning that consumers benefit at the expense of manufacturers. However, imposing tariffs inevitably results in consumer surplus being converted into deadweight loss, which creates an inefficient economy and thus not in the social interest of the country. This is the real reason why economists support free trade, not because they don't believe in American manufacturing or that Americans are incapable of building. 

 

VG8, I respect you, your opinion and your right to have them, but these gross oversimplifications ("economists say we can't manufacture etc etc") of important concepts creates a situation where people make irrational, emotional decisions over logical and rational ones. Obviously, it is clear that the manufacturing part of the United States is suffering and the government has not done enough to help these people, but at the same time, we cannot dismiss the very clear benefits of free trade. The solutions to these problems are way above my pay grade (thank god) but in my very honest opinion, the anti-intellectualism that has swept over a large part of this country is extremely disconcerting.

 

Don't think I'm pointing you out specifically, because I'm not. I think this applies to a very large portion of the general populace. Any "lack of rigor" in soft sciences such as economics is the result of a lack of a controlled environment, not because of unethical or ulterior motives. Dismissing a field of study because of a preconceived paucity of credible results is nothing more than an argument reserved for those who seek to wish to confirm their personal biases or are unwilling to learn (or both).

With all due respect, I took economics back in college and found the various diagrams and models dubious at best; they are nowhere near as rigorous as the real sciences such as physics or chemistry.  You assume the voters are uneducated, but you may be mistaken- I learned all the theoretical concepts, and yet upon practical observation found that they have less to do with real life than one might like to think.  Economics will never be as valid a discipline as mathematics or engineering because there is simply too much room for error.  And I have no faith in a system of free trade that makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class extinct.

The other big problem with economics as a discipline is that since the late 1970s it's basically devolved into ideology.  Sure, most current economists here and in Western Europe might share a consensus about privatization and cutting taxes at the top, but I doubt they would have found common ground with the economists in Eastern Europe before 1990 or England pre-1980.  I find it troubling when people try to subtly disguise ideology as scientific 'fact'.

 

And at the end of the day, sometimes possessing degree X in field Y can be meaningless, especially when formal education outweighs plain common sense.  I've met plenty of people who had little formal education but were naturally intelligent, and I've encountered an equal if not greater amount of folks who had an advanced degree yet were practically retarded.

 

There's a reason my avatar is Bernard Sanders, and not Milton Friedman.  Just sayin'.

[Around the Horn]

 When I look at prospective candidates, as long as there are no big red flags in their academic career (1.0 GPA, multiple suspensions, etc), I care more about their intangibles and the projects that they worked on OUTSIDE of school. School assigned coding projects are boring and do nothing more than encourage mass cheating. 

 

Oh yeah. I'm a pretty good example of that...

 

I've taken my interest in trains (which many teachers and fellow students laughed off as some insane obsession) and am trying to turn it into a career as an urban planner... 

 

Until now, (my first year in college) I had never even come close to doing anything resembling urban planning in school, and at times it was frowned upon. I came to love my art classes because I could just draw all my ideas to my heart's content...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

With all due respect, I took economics back in college and found the various diagrams and models dubious at best; they are nowhere near as rigorous as the real sciences such as physics or chemistry.  You assume the voters are uneducated, but you may be mistaken- I learned all the theoretical concepts, and yet upon practical observation found that they have less to do with real life than one might like to think.  Economics will never be as valid a discipline as mathematics or engineering because there is simply too much room for error.  And I have no faith in a system of free trade that makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class extinct.

The other big problem with economics as a discipline is that since the late 1970s it's basically devolved into ideology.  Sure, most current economists here and in Western Europe might share a consensus about privatization and cutting taxes at the top, but I doubt they would have found common ground with the economists in Eastern Europe before 1990 or England pre-1980.  I find it troubling when people try to subtly disguise ideology as scientific 'fact'.

 

And at the end of the day, sometimes possessing degree X in field Y can be meaningless, especially when formal education outweighs plain common sense.  I've met plenty of people who had little formal education but were naturally intelligent, and I've encountered an equal if not greater amount of folks who had an advanced degree yet were practically retarded.

 

There's a reason my avatar is Bernard Sanders, and not Milton Friedman.  Just sayin'.

LMAO... Well said my friend!  That's exactly what I was thinking about when I thought about those lovely "economists" on CNN, frowning their noses up at the idea of manufacturing coming back to the US.  I too have taken economics classes... It isn't that complicated as some people try to make it sound.

[2 Train Master]

Well there have to be quality safeguards, not just trade safeguards.  The R44s and R46s were also 'built American' and they turned out to be horrible- caused decades of headaches for Transit and put Pullman, an industrial heavyweight, out of business.  Those two botched orders are partly the reason the TA switched over to foreign companies unfortunately... 

Horrible because they were different. Not the fact for being 75 feet but having carbon on the side and being part of an era that was heavy in graffiti the chemicals deteriorated and the salt water combined didn't help. But St. Louis Car Co made pretty decent subway cars that lasted longer than their expectancy. As for the 46's they were horrible because they featured NEW tech back then but they're still getting the job done I mean they're 41 and the SIR 44's are slightly older holding on. 

[MHV9218]

With all due respect, I took economics back in college and found the various diagrams and models dubious at best; they are nowhere near as rigorous as the real sciences such as physics or chemistry.  You assume the voters are uneducated, but you may be mistaken- I learned all the theoretical concepts, and yet upon practical observation found that they have less to do with real life than one might like to think.  Economics will never be as valid a discipline as mathematics or engineering because there is simply too much room for error.  And I have no faith in a system of free trade that makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class extinct.

 

It's going to be really difficult to argue that voters are educated after this election cycle, in which millions of Americans were bamboozled by a demagogue who immediately broke all of his promises (Drain the Swamp, etc.) the minute he was elected. He did better among people who hadn't gone to college, and he even proclaimed he 'loves the poorly educated.' Anti-intellectualism is the way that the new leader won and the premise of much of his campaign. I also don't think it's fair to say that because you took Econ in college you can write off the entire field. You really think you're smarter than actual economists on this stuff? I took it too and had my disagreements but I would never be cocky enough to disregard all of the theorists. I agree that it's somewhat of a pseudo-science in that it claims to be entirely objective when there are obviously value judgments which come into the math of it, but it is an immensely complicated field and I don't think you can just declare it 'dubious' and ignore it.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's going to be really difficult to argue that voters are educated after this election cycle, in which millions of Americans were bamboozled by a demagogue who immediately broke all of his promises (Drain the Swamp, etc.) the minute he was elected. He did better among people who hadn't gone to college, and he even proclaimed he 'loves the poorly educated.' Anti-intellectualism is the way that the new leader won and the premise of much of his campaign. I also don't think it's fair to say that because you took Econ in college you can write off the entire field. You really think you're smarter than actual economists on this stuff? I took it too and had my disagreements but I would never be cocky enough to disregard all of the theorists. I agree that it's somewhat of a pseudo-science in that it claims to be entirely objective when there are obviously value judgments which come into the math of it, but it is an immensely complicated field and I don't think you can just declare it 'dubious' and ignore it.  

Oh please... You never miss your chance to take a swipe at Trump do you? Listen, crooked Hillary doesn't give a damn about America or the American people.  All she ever cared about was herself, as shown by her support for the horrendous trade deals that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.  And yes, I agree with the R10 with the idea that a lot of these economists are out for themselves and making sure that their pockets are fatter while speculating on the American worker and their livelihood.  After all it's not like their jobs are going anywhere.  I would've gladly voted for Bernie over her.  He actually cares about America and American jobs.

[R10 2952]

Horrible because they were different. Not the fact for being 75 feet but having carbon on the side and being part of an era that was heavy in graffiti the chemicals deteriorated and the salt water combined didn't help. But St. Louis Car Co made pretty decent subway cars that lasted longer than their expectancy. As for the 46's they were horrible because they featured NEW tech back then but they're still getting the job done I mean they're 41 and the SIR 44's are slightly older holding on.

Well the R44s were more or less lemons both before and after rebuilding; the R46s after GOH have improved and are no longer duds, but are still what George Carlin would call "minimally exceptional" when compared to R68s or the R32 ten years back.

 

As for St. Louis Car, they made some decent stuff for a while, but their biggest mistake was building stainless-steel cars with carbon steel roofs.  Granted, the Transit Authority should not have been deferring maintenance and running their cars into the ground (looking at you, A Division) for so many years, but then maybe they should not have given four contracts in a row (R38-R44) to the same manufacturer.

 

And then of course there's the issue of how successful some of the rebuilds were.  Morrison-Knudsen did a good job with the R32s and R42s, Sumitomo did barely-average with the R40s, and General Electric simply f**ked up with the R38s and 10 R32s they did.  I've never seen such shitty roofline welding; most of the R38s rebuilt in 1987-88 started rusting off the top again by the mid-90s.  And I still don't get why they replaced the HVAC on 4140-4149; those cars came factory equipped with cooling to begin with.  The interiors also became way too dim once the center line of lights was removed and you only had the ad backlighting remaining for illumination.

If you're going to contract out your rebuilding, at least make sure they do a better job than in-house work.

[bobtehpanda]

The main problems with the American car companies after a while was quality control and a refusal to diversify. For example, the French are not exactly known for being free-traders or for making cheap products, yet Alstom is alive, primarily because

 

• The French buy a lot of trains, and
• The French sell trains to other countries who can be convinced that their products are good.

 

Compare this to the story of Budd, where

 

 

 

The Metroliner-based Amfleet body was recycled for usage in the SPV-2000, a modernized diesel passenger car which was very problematic, saw only four buyers (Amtrak, ONCF, Metro-North and Connecticut Department of Transportation), and saw premature retirements within 15 years. The fallout from the SPV-2000 furthered the company's decline.

 

If your home market shrinks, you look elsewhere. The American railcar companies clearly failed to do that and thus sowed the seeds of their own demise. (It also didn't help that many of them voluntarily left the business.)

 

In contrast, we have been building out and expanding light rail systems, and this is where all the growth has been; here we do see American streetcar companies like Brookvile or United operating. The market has simply moved to where the money is.

[MikeC]

There's no question that we have to adapt.  The problem is we haven't been making adjustments accordingly.  This is part of the issue with globalism. Change is happening so quickly that there hasn't been enough time to process and make modifications.  We need to make changes on many levels, not just with jobs, but education as well.  We are moving down the ladder in that area too... We may be forced to look at the Scandinavian model for education... Finland for example has an extremely high standard when it comes to education and children progressing.

I like Newt Gingrich's model. I think the problem is we try to shield our kids from the realities of life. We try to prevent them from growing up. Not only that the education system is designed to get to kids to pass gov't standardized tests and that's that. They're not preparing kids for the real world but instead just to meet what they demand. Gov't is out of touch with the student. 

[MikeC]

I don't think there anything we can do but adapt. Statistics, economics, currency and time to an extent all man made. And it's coming to end of its shelf life. Capitalism has run its course there's almost no more to extract.  

It's not that capitalism has run its course. It's that American innovation is dying, primarily due to globalism. We've gotten lazy as a nation and its shown in our leadership. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The main problems with the American car companies after a while was quality control and a refusal to diversify. For example, the French are not exactly known for being free-traders or for making cheap products, yet Alstom is alive, primarily because

 

• The French buy a lot of trains, and
• The French sell trains to other countries who can be convinced that their products are good.

The French have always been known for making quality products.  Same thing with most German goods.  The quality standards in Western Europe are quite rigorous, so when I don't buy American, I'll buy from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.  Aside from that the French have been making these sorts of goods for years. China is still new to the game.

[bobtehpanda]

It's not that capitalism has run its course. It's that American innovation is dying, primarily due to globalism. We've gotten lazy as a nation and its shown in our leadership. 

 

American innovation isn't dying; we lead the world in biotech, health, technology, etc. 

 

The problem is that American innovation is now concentrated in brain-heavy industries, so a person who a generation ago could've worked in a factory or a mine with only a GED is now SOL because of their lack of qualifications.

[MikeC]

American innovation isn't dying; we lead the world in biotech, health, technology, etc. 

 

The problem is that American innovation is now concentrated in brain-heavy industries, so a person who a generation ago could've worked in a factory or a mine with only a GED is now SOL because of their lack of qualifications.

We're still up there but we're losing ground. I'm not sure about technology(we do have most of the worlds top companies) but Asian countries are beating us in alot of things in that regard especially public transportation(Japan) and definitely not health/healthcare.

[Around the Horn]

American innovation isn't dying; we lead the world in biotech, health, technology, etc. 

 

The problem is that American innovation is now concentrated in brain-heavy industries, so a person who a generation ago could've worked in a factory or a mine with only a GED is now SOL because of their lack of qualifications.

 

^THIS.

 

and frankly, I do think capitalism has run its course, but thats a deeper discussion for another time...

[RailRunRob]

American innovation isn't dying; we lead the world in biotech, health, technology, etc. 

 

The problem is that American innovation is now concentrated in brain-heavy industries, so a person who a generation ago could've worked in a factory or a mine with only a GED is now SOL because of their lack of qualifications.

Bob were on the same page everything I was going to say, buddy.

We're still up there but we're losing ground. I'm not sure about technology(we do have most of the worlds top companies) but Asian countries are beating us in alot of things in that regard especially public transportation(Japan) and definitely not health/healthcare.

That's money funding and capitalism blocking that. I've worked projects for Asian transport systems from here in the US we don't want invest but the talent is here no question.

[RailRunRob]

American innovation isn't dying; we lead the world in biotech, health, technology, etc. 

 

The problem is that American innovation is now concentrated in brain-heavy industries, so a person who a generation ago could've worked in a factory or a mine with only a GED is now SOL because of their lack of qualifications.

This is it nail on the head. So many people got by a generation ago just by looking the part with a High School diploma and some work ethic. The world is catching up and there are more people stepping their game up and competing that's not enough anymore. City jobs and safety not in the 21th Century. Those days are gone.

[RailRunRob]

Oh yeah. I'm a pretty good example of that...

 

I've taken my interest in trains (which many teachers and fellow students laughed off as some insane obsession) and am trying to turn it into a career as an urban planner... 

 

Until now, (my first year in college) I had never even come close to doing anything resembling urban planning in school, and at times it was frowned upon. I came to love my art classes because I could just draw all my ideas to my heart's content...

Stay on the path!! God know's we need more people in that field with the passion.

[Around the Horn]

Stay on the path!! God know's we need more people in that field with the passion.

Thanks! I appreciate it! Slowly but surely has been my motto...

[bobtehpanda]

We're still up there but we're losing ground. I'm not sure about technology(we do have most of the worlds top companies) but Asian countries are beating us in alot of things in that regard especially public transportation(Japan) and definitely not health/healthcare.

 

For bleeding edge medical stuff, we're pretty up there, if you can pay for it. We're just bad at providing average healthcare to everybody.

[RailRunRob]

Thanks! I appreciate it! Slowly but surely has been my motto...

Slow go is better than no go. There's no shortcuts out here! Just have to roll them sleeves up.

CRRC locking in some checks! It's safe to say there in the US market at this point.

 

http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsus-mbta-orders-120-additional-rail-cars-from-crrc-5696767/

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, but to build for New York, they need a plant physically in New York.

[RailRunRob]

Yes, but to build for New York, they need a plant physically in New York.

Yep, for sure there were some comments about not wanting CRRC building for US systems I was just making that point they're here already.  With the CTA and MBTA