Maybe downvoted because both links were about the company I work for - so it&#x27;s kinda spammy.<p>I originally wanted to link steel and textiles, but I don&#x27;t have actual sources for that. Both steel and textiles went overseas for price considerations, but I think that if US management and labor would have focused on improving quality and cost for each of those they would still be in business in the US (and Britain, etc).<p>In the 1970&#x27;s GM and Ford started the steps of getting out of the vertical integration business. This meant that their components could come from anywhere - competition was based on cost and quality; but mainly cost. Some perverse metrics here meant that internal suppliers drove themselves out of business because they did not improve quality.<p>For example: for a very long time, automotive components were produced on an Inspect and Reject scheme, where a large lot of material was built up at one site (internal or external) and then inspected at point of use. The manager at the component production site was compensated based on number of units produced, effectively driving down quality. The manager at the point of use was also compensated based on number of units produced, again driving defects into production units as bad material was used in production.<p>People who work mainly with code would do well to remember that physical production is <i>hard</i>. Also, incentives will <i>always</i> have perverse  outcomes over a long enough timeframe. There&#x27;s no way to list all of your assumptions when you set up incentives.<p>Anyway, I&#x27;d love to hear stories like this from other physical products (like textiles and steel for instance).