The Relocation Of Shenzhen And Hong Kong Enterprises Is Not A Bad Thing.

Recently, the Hongkong Trade Development Council organized 43 representatives of Hongkong's clothing and footwear industry. "Tuan Tuan" went to Vietnam and Kampuchea to conduct an inspection. The purpose of the survey is very clear: let the representatives of Hongkong's garment and footwear industries who want to move to production bases evaluate the possibility of relocation.

Starting in June 2007, in less than 1 years, it was the second time that the Hong Kong TDC has organized "close" contacts between Kampuchea and Hong Kong enterprises.

Last year, the Hongkong Federation of Industry issued a research report that the WAN delta enterprises in the Pearl River Delta will face the danger of closure and frequent contact with Vietnam, Kampuchea, Indonesia and other countries.

Some people worry that the political situation in Vietnam, Kampuchea, Indonesia and other countries is unstable, and there are frequent strikes in the region. It is not necessarily a good thing and choice to carry out industrial pfer for the manufacturing industry in Shenzhen (or the Pearl River Delta) to invest in Hong Kong, to find cheap labor force and to invest in low cost areas.

I once thought this way.

But as an inherent property of enterprises, that is profit, the profits of enterprises are fundamental.

If the investment cost, labor force, data price, tax and so on do not occupy the dominant position, it is better to choose the "escape" to move out than "wait for death" on the ground.

As a manufacturing hub, the Pearl River Delta or Shenzhen, the relocation of Hong Kong enterprises will inevitably bring great pains to the domestic economy and industrial adjustment. One step further is to say that incomplete migration or partial migration is also difficult to avoid such labor pains, which is to reduce the economic output value of the local manufacturing industry (the national economic output may decline in the same period) and increase the employment pressure. However, there is no labor pains to save the upgrading of China's manufacturing industry.

It is not a bad thing to just go outside or part of the manufacturing industry.

First of all, it is worth noting that according to market economy behavior, the market will automatically adjust the industrial structure and optimize the allocation of resources.

If a place or a region lacks a certain category or industry to provide production and supply, then a similar enterprise may have new vitality, because the huge market gap leads to its production and production efficiency, and it will also be accompanied by a new batch of enterprises to invest in some sectors of the shortage of social goods for investment, just as the manufacturing industry does not make money. Many bosses sell their factories to the stock market and the real estate market. If the market brings more market or the market competition pressure slows down, the funds that once flow to the stock market and the real estate market will return to the manufacturing sector.

Moreover, after the industrial upgrading of those large and profitable enterprises, these new capital inputs or enterprises will not go back to the original short-sighted low-end industrial chain. With more social capital reflux, they will also try to optimize the allocation of resources. Once they are launched, they will go straight to the stage of industrial upgrading.

This fact is very simple. If they do not do so, they will not be competitive in the market. They may be faced with the result of being stuck or eliminated. I don't think many people would like to do so.

Secondly, the relocation of manufacturing industries mainly aimed at export trade is also a good thing for easing China's huge trade surplus and the enormous economic risks it brings.

It has omitted administrative measures to control the disadvantages of trade exporting enterprises, such as the dissatisfaction of the Chinese government's restrictions on exports to some western countries. This has happened recently. In a report submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 21 May, the Chinese government reiterated that "the Chinese government's determination to achieve economic equilibrium through stimulating consumption demand, rather than relying on investment and exports, should vigorously promote the development of agriculture and service industries while developing manufacturing."

Subsequently, the US ambassador to WTO Orr Gaye (Peter Allgeier) expressed his dissatisfaction with China's economic policy. He pointed out that China tried to protect domestic enterprises through the "distorted trade" industrial policy and created pressure.

At the same time, it also adds that these reflect that China has not yet completed the pformation from the planned economic system to the market economic system.

In view of this, the relocation of enterprises mainly aimed at export trade can not only eliminate international political barriers, but also achieve the initiative to slow down dependence on export trade to stimulate economic growth, and then turn to expand domestic demand and drive economic sustainable development.

From this level, it is a superior choice.

The ancients talked about "losing something in the East and getting rid of it." in our common saying, "there are gains and losses".

Manufacturing and exports mainly to export enterprises, and even get more than lost.

In other words, when enterprises move outward in large areas, we must also guard against the economic pain problem brought about by the relocation of enterprises, which is actually the issue of livelihood security.

Because the relocation of enterprises brings about the problem of reduced employment or increasing unemployment rate. This brings potential crisis to the living guarantee of those working class, the special wage income is the largest proportion of all income. First, how long is the labor pains after such industry relocation?

Two, how long is the basic life guarantee for those who lose their jobs?

After the compromise between the two sides, are those unemployed groups able to work and resolve the crisis before they get into the dilemma of basic living security?

This is a problem.

Under such circumstances, I want to optimize the investment environment as far as possible within the scope of the government's power, and help enterprises to complete industrial upgrading to the maximum extent, especially for the existing dilemmas of SMEs.

However, this is not a policy of long-term stability, sometimes accompanied by the government's so-called "help behavior" appeared "administrative intervention" role dislocation.

In the end, the government should be less regulated and deregulation, and more regulatory policies and efforts should be directed to the current fiscal and taxation systems, financial systems and state-owned monopoly enterprises that occupy a large share of resource allocation.

For a long time to come, it is still the main sticking point of China's economic regulation to continue to deepen market reform and optimize resource allocation (allocation of production information and allocation of financial resources).