I saw a fascinating WSJ article on Boeing recently, that relates to this.
During the pandemic Boeing wanted to downsize, so being run by Excel-brains, they did a lot of it via early retirements. They got rid of a large portion of their most skilled labor without realizing 1/
that this would be a problem. I mean, labor is labor, the young ones are cheaper, so why not get rid of as many of the expensive old ones as possible?
It took them years to figure out what they had done - since the MBAs didn't understand how Boeing actually built its planes.
2/
They finally understand that they can't build planes because they got rid of too much skilled labor, while the new hires weren't good enough.
So, as part of their attempted quality cures, they are extending training times,
3/
and trying to use the older skilled labor they still have as mentors to train the new hires.
Of course, there is a lot more difference between the old and new hires than just experience, but the article didn't go into that.
4/
I suppose the other explanation is the oldest and most skilled labor were overwhelming white and male, and the younger ones were less so, so getting rid of the skilled labor allowed DEI goals to be achieved.
It was likely both, MBAs reducing expenses while hitting DEI goals.
5/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the biggest issues facing the US is that the "elite" groupthink / propaganda is so appallingly bad. Case in point, today's WSJ analysis of Iran trying to close the Straits of Hormuz (link follows).
By unanimous consent, the Houthis closing the Red Sea never happened.
1/
"The saber-rattling has conjured memories of the attacks on oil tankers traded by Iran and Iraq during their conflict in the 1980s. U.S. warships patrolled the region and eventually began escorting some commercial ships, in operations that turned deadly."
"McTigue’s ship returned fire with four of its own missiles, helping destroy the largest warship the U.S. Navy has sunk since World War II. “They called it a one-day war,” McTigue said of Operation Praying Mantis"
3/
I'm seeing replies addressing right or wrong in this & related threads. Yes, this is how the justifications are presented, but this can't be seen in isolation.
The adult framing HAS to be how to use limited resources to navigate a difficult world with many challenges. 1/
Because of decades of military, political and economic decisions, the US finds itself wanting to act a global military superpower, but without the defense manufacturing base to back it up.
2/
If the US wants to continue to be a global military superpower, then it must very carefully & strategically manage what resources it has while pursuing an emergency reindustrialization program that is particularly aimed at defense manufacturing.
3/
As I've written about in numerous threads, the US has some fantastic weapons that were only made in moderate numbers, and that it cannot currently manufacture at scale or quickly. If the US uses up too many of them too quickly, such as interceptor missiles, then the US loses.
2/
That is the irreplaceable strategic context that all major US military actions need to be evaluated from, one offs are propaganda for children.
The attacks were a gamble. They will be a success if nothing spreads. They will be a horrible error if things escalate.
3/
From today's WSJ: "U.S. Races to Defend Israel as It Burns Through Missile Interceptors"
"Short supplies of high-end defenses could lead to rationing as Iranian attacks continue"
2/
"The U.S. is racing to reinforce Israel’s defenses, sending more warships capable of shooting down ballistic missiles to the region as Iranian attacks drain Israel’s stocks of interceptors."
3/
The news from Israel is so good that it contradicts itself. Israel has total air superiority, and has devastated Iranian launcher capabilities. Also, Israel is intercepting 90% of Iranian missiles.
But - too many missile are getting through for both statements to be true. 1/
If Israel has devastated Iranian launchers then Iran isn't launching 100s of missiles daily - so a lot more than 10% are getting through.
If only 10% are getting through, then Iran must still have hundreds of active launchers, so Israel hasn't destroyed them.
Which is true?
2/
Resolving this contradiction is very important for Americans.
If Iran isn't near destroyed but still a snarling beast able to launch barrages of hundreds of missiles - we the people need to know that before getting directly involved.
3/
Reality beats the Narrative, and that is true even during the hyperventilating propaganda of a new Mideast war. As I've been writing about for years, the reality is the US doesn't have enough missiles.
Per the WSJ (video link later), Israel is running out of Arrow 3 missiles.
1/
Israel uses a four part layered antimissile missile defense, and the Arrow 3s are the "crown jewels" of their system, the interceptors for long-range ballistic missiles.
As covered in the video, the Israelis claim to have shot down about 90% of the 370 Iranian missiles shot.
2/
But the issue is what it has always been - the Iranians have more long-range ballistic missiles than the Israelis do interceptors.
If the interceptors run out, and the Iranians still have launch capabilities - it will be mayhem in Israel, just the simple numbers.
3/