>>>PMFJI Al,
>>>
>>>>>Your comparison of the hardware inside a PC and outsourcing software development is specious. Robots in India, Taiwan, etc. differ little from those within the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>Let's assume that's true. Why, then, aren't all electronic components made in the U.S.?
>>>
>>>One reason - cost. Recycling/disposal of etchant, defluxers, and cleaning solvents used in circuit board production can be upwards of 5 times the original cost. I'm not familiar with semiconductor production, but I suspect there are similar costs. Beyond that are other costs - Superfund comes to mind. We are still dealing with disposals from the 60's and 70's today. How are these other countries competing? Use your imagination...
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>While this is an interesting argument as far as it goes I should point out:
>>
>>- I'd rather not use my imagination on how other countries might dispose of hazardous wastes. I have no direct experience myself, but my brother installs wafer handling and processing equipment in fabs. Environmental controls are extremely tight, both to keep out dust and other contaminants and to keep in (and under control) some deadly organometallic compounds they use (deadly as in, 1 whiff you're dead). Do you have any evidence that overseas electronics manufacturers cut corners on waste disposal?
>>
>
>None. But a Google search of "toxic waste third world" gives 257,000 hits, and the first page should be more than sufficient to satisfy your curiousity. And let's not limit ourselves to just "electronics" manufacturers. The costs of industrial waste in general are tremendous here in the US. To believe that disposal of those wastes beyond the fabs in the 3rd world is treated with as good or better handling than here is naive. Cheaper? I'd bet on it.
>
>See http://www.svtc.org/icrt/asia/taiwan3_01.htm for a sample.

Thanks for the link. I should point out that, you get more meaningful Google hits if you search on "toxic waste" "third world" - about 7,400. Lots of food for thought!

>
>>- My question was rhetorical because it points out that the decision to outsource overseas has nothing to do with robots, which was Houston's "reasoning" behind why my comparison was "specious"
>>
>
>I agree.
>
>>- All of this is a side issue to my main point that, however it is done in practice, clearly overseas outsourcing can be done successfully.
>
>I have no doubt of that. It is unfortunate that costs, I believe, are the major driving force. Mine was just a simple example where I do have some direct experience.

I think that not only are costs a major driving factor, but *how* those costs are calculated varies around the world as well.