We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Tariffs to Help Domestic Manufacturers?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The biggest manipulator in the currency markets is the biggest player....the US Government.
In addition, and I know that this lights your fires, the US Govt ( Dems and Reps ) since the 80's have met with the other trading partners to come to agreements with each other on where the currency levels should be.
No one is being taken advantage of in this situatin we are promoting it!!!! Encouraging it!!!! Assisting it!!!
It's just good business to do this. Yes it hurts some unionized companies and some may be displaced but hey that's life and these people and towns will adjust. It's just good business to push the activities that are more efficient and cost effective and let the less efficient ones slip into the past. Harsh? Yes. True? Absolutely.
You speak about 30-40% manipulation now. Did you go back to the 70's and see where the US Govt assisted in 200-300% manipulation in our favor?
I didn't think so. Those were golden times for the unionized shops.
Why should a company when in a competitive market such as automobiles be penalized when the other company it is competing against is making inferior products.
I have read mentioned in these posts about everything from money manipulation, education costs, labor costs, government regulations.
Where is the mention of capitalist economy? American auto makers Primarily have no one to blame but themselves. We wouldn't even be discussing this topic if the american auto makers were designing and building attractive and reliable automobiles. We the american public would be buying these cars and the companies would be in a much better position. They have been turning out mostly crap automobiles for the last 15-20 years.
Companies that make quality products and provide good customer service will stay in business and they thrive if there is a need for their service or product. Companies that make inferior products ultimately fail unless they are subsidized by the government or another party.
Dobbs' economic theory was very popular to the Men of The Street 100 years ago. It's called Mercantilism. What the Men of the Street back then, and perhaps even today, do not realize is that Mercantilism inevitably leads to wars because the market boundaries drawn up by Mercantilism are arbitrary political boundaries. That means the drive for division of labor and efficiency inevitably leads to boundary disputes: after all, if turning the coal in the Midlands, Ruhr and West Virginia into oil costs $100/barrel, and oil is only $5/barrel at the well head in the Middleast, it should be obvious that anyone whois stuck with having to make do with the $100/barrel is doomed economicly and militarily if others can happily live off the $5/barrel oil. If there is no global free trade so everyone can get a slice of the cheap oil, there would be a huge incentive to grab the middleast into each empire's own trade system. Likewise for grain from Ukraine, beef from Argintina, cheap labor in India, etc. etc.. War is of course devastating for the those who lose it. For those who win it, it's costly to begin with, and then what is gained in a "victory"? The "victor" gets stuff for cheap . . . but wait a minute, doesn't these same inexpensive commodities "destroy jobs" in the "victors'" home countries in these specific industries? So what's all that waste of lives and money fighting wars for? If one is set out with the goal of economic inefficiency (protection of obsolete/non-competitive jobs), there really can be no win.
We don't have enough service jobs to support such a theory because over in India, they are educating those people to handle those jobs at a lower rate. they will either work over there or come over here on a work visa to take your job. So when you and i have no job we won't be able to use those cheap good or afford those services.
The last sentence pretty much illustrates the fault with your theory. If we Americans can no longer afford to those services, those services would not be outsourced anymore and Indians wouldn't come here any longer either. The whole process is very similar to the relationship between big cities like NYC and the country side: people (labor) and commodity (like food, fuel, etc.) go into the city because there is enough going on in the city to attract labor and goods from outside. The protectionist schtick is about as silly as advocating banning food import into NYC in order to preserve garden vegetable growers and revive farming in Central Park. Sure, as NYC/New Amsterdam gradually give up farming from 1600-1900, some residents became worse off as examplified by vagrancy etc. (vagrants would not have been able to live off the land if the place was just farmers with guns protecting their farms). However, the standard of living of the whole place would not have exceeded the limits imposed by farm productivity without trading with the rest of the world.
India, like many other nations have a education system where college and vocational schooling is free.
Getting to spend a set number of years in a lecture hall is very different from getting a set of marketable skills . . . just like receiving a spot in a dimly lit hall way (due to lack of hospital beds) and seen by someone in a dirty white robe and intent on punching their time sheet is quite different from getting a cure. The inability to see into the details is often behind the dreams of getting something for nothing. There is a reason why the most talented Indian students are in the US, and by and large intend to stay in the US after they graduate. The free market opportunity is what attract them to here; many Indian mercantilists call that a "brain drain" from their own country.
Right now we have 26% of our jobs in manufacturing and each year that percentage is going to fall. If we go to a service economy we will have all our eggs in one basket.
Less than 2% of US jobs are in agriculture, down from 80% a little over a hundred years ago. There is no widespread famine, however, as the result. The distinction between manufacturing and service industry is a very vague one. Why is a clothes manufacturer considered in the manufacturing industry, but a tailor turning the same piece of cloth into a fine suit considered in the service industry? Why is a fashion jewler stamping out cheap glass trinckets considered in a manufacturing industry, but a boutique shop making jewlry from real gold and precious stones considered in the service industry? Methinks "service industry" was simply a catch-all term invented when the socialist-leaning economists realized they could no longer keep up with the rapidly mashrooming skill differentiation that was starting to take place as the economy modernized. Much of "service industry" is simply manufacturing with far higher labor value due to customization . . . which means higher income!
but if nafta has worked as designed, why is there still a border crossing problem, maybe the most pervasive ever?
You are wrong here. It's not your tax dollars that KY used to buy the Toyota business it the tax dollars of the people of the state of KY. They made a $100 Million investment back in 1985 and it has paid off in spades... I can show you if you like. It has been so profitable for the people of KY that now everyone want's in the game. It's hugely profitable for the state and the localities to put the money up front and get all the benefits down the road.
It can damage the economies of cities and states that lose but that's the way business is run all over the world.
Bingo. Read the latest Edmund's comparo of the Ford Expedition vs. the NEW Chevy Tahoe. While much improved, the Tahoe still loses. You can't just reskin and put a decent interior in it. The improvements have to be meaningful, and that includes refinement and a decent transmission.
Rocky, we love ya, but sorry about this one. Ford has to shut down plants because they have so many employees! They are very inefficient!
You're sort of saying, "it's not fair, my favorite company employs a lot more people than efficient competitor X, I don't like that because X is unfairly competing and therefore all the employees at my favorite company are losing their jobs."
You're complaining about CAPITALISM. Last I recall that's what makes this country strong! Of course we could socialize guaranteed jobs, I hear Russia and Eastern Europe tried that a few decades ago...
In the near future you global capitalist will get your "chip" implant from the new world order and you will bow to "The Mark" and I won't feel a bit sorry for y'all. :sick:
Rocky
The ideas now are 'What can I make that the people in both India and Russia might need or want? If I can get $1 from every person in the US I've got $300 Million. But If I can get $1 from every person in India and China then I've got $2 Billion.'
Frankly though those that don't do well in school, screw up get into trouble and drink, sleep, drug their way through school will end up at the bottom of the food chain. They didn't put in the effort when they should have so when they move into the marketplace they have no skills for the 21st century.
You know you are just a little xenophobic.
Americans that would like to start their own car company in this country today find the current conditions next to impossible with the foreign competetion getting all the breaks. We've essentially driven out any chance of having a 4th domestic automaker because of our capatalistic policies. :mad:
I wished there was more internal competition instead of the global junk we too often see. :mad:
Rocky
Well some are exceptions just look inside the White House to find your answer.
Rocky
And the Big Three would just raise their prices in the absense of competition. Which is what happened when the Reagan Administration negotiated "voluntary" agreements with Japan to limit auto imports in the mid-1980s. This forced up the prices of Japanese cars - the demand never went away - and Detroit used this umbrella to raise ITS prices.
In Detroit, executive bonuses were sky high, and the union went after its share, too.
Meanwhile, the poor and the middle class ended up paying more for their new vehicles.
rockylee: Americans that would like to start their own car company in this country today find the current conditions next to impossible with the foreign competetion getting all the breaks. We've essentially driven out any chance of having a 4th domestic automaker because of our capatalistic policies.
We haven't had a strong "4th" American auto maker since 1965, when AMC started its downhill slide. This was long before imports became a major threat.
rockylee: I wished there was more internal competition instead of the global junk we too often see.
Thanks to the strong GLOBAL competition, we aren't driving junk.
When I was a member of the local chapter of the Oldsmobile Club of America (I had a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe), the chapter president was a truck driver and a part-time mechanic who had restored a 1970 442. He drove GM products faithfully.
His words to me:
"I drive American cars, but I have to thank the Japanese - if it weren't for them, we'd all be driving junk today."
So you favor dictating to the American working class from whom they may buy their cars? That would be the practical effect of your proposal.
In effect, you're saying "If you're well-off, you may buy from whomever you want (as you'll be able to afford to tariff-adjusted price), but if you're middle class, you may buy only from domestic makers." Do you think they'll go for this, restricting their choices?
What actually would happen is the Japanese would have to lower their artificially high car prices. I totally but respectfully disagree with you.
In Detroit, executive bonuses were sky high, and the union went after its share, too.
I agree the big 3, didn't invest its lofty profits back into the industry. They paid themselves huge salary's and bonuses. The union did indeed receive some wage increases but even they weren't making as much as other company's back in the 80's.
We haven't had a strong "4th" American auto maker since 1965, when AMC started its downhill slide. This was long before imports became a major threat.
I blame that on our current government policy's that are unfavorable to american citizens that would like to start their own buisness here in the U.S. :sick: That use to be the american dream and its only obtainable for foreign company's willing to invest into the U.S. or should I say gradually purchase my country. :sick:
Thanks to the strong GLOBAL competition, we aren't driving junk.
Like I said if we would protect our current buisness and create new oppertunity's for new buisness we could have more internal competition and its a win for the consumer and america's workers.
When I was a member of the local chapter of the Oldsmobile Club of America (I had a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe), the chapter president was a truck driver and a part-time mechanic who had restored a 1970 442. He drove GM products faithfully.
His words to me:
"I drive American cars, but I have to thank the Japanese - if it weren't for them, we'd all be driving junk today."
That's a shared opinion by many americans. I however somewhat disagree with it based on what I believe and said in my earlier posts.
Rocky
I know you strongly oppose my beliefs but many americans that grew up in a manufactoring state and family like I did want to save manufactoring in this country. Like I've said to you earlier a nearly 100% "service economy" is a pseudo-capatalist golden eutophia.
If we go to war with China we would have to call up China, and ask them if we could buy some Stealths to use on them. :surprise: Do you really want to sacrifice the
"know how" of building blue chip goods ? My self that has been the backbone of our country. Obviously you disagree.
Rocky
Are y'all as impressed with the EVO-X as me ????
Loren, I'd like to hear your take on it also pal ????
Rocky
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Rocky
The primary barrier to starting up a car company in the US is the raft of onerously expensive safety and emission regulations that have to be met by any potential entrant. These came about as a result of the domestics' lackadaisical attitude toward such things, but were grudgingly supported by the domestics in the vain hope that it would provide an insurmountable barrier to foreign makes.
That use to be the american dream and its only obtainable for foreign company's willing to invest into the U.S. or should I say gradually purchase my country.
You might want to crack open a book and find out how much of North America's industrial development was funded by British capitalists.
Perhaps I should open that book. However the british are not a enemy and is a friendly democracy where people have labor laws and human rights. They also pay people in the United Kingdom a livable wage keeping them on a level playing field with us. I have absolutely no problem having free trade and a open market with the british.
Rocky
Maybe... you should list who our enemies are so that we are prepared for the Armageddon that you foresee.
Germany? We fought them twice
France? No one likes them here since they were right about Iraq and refused to join us ( Ditto Germany )
Mexico? That's a no brainer, we are already at war with them.
Japan? Your favorite target.
China?
Korea? Does it matter North or South?
Russia? Obviously
Iraq? We broke it we own it!!
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Israel? They spy on us all the time, plus they are in the MidEast.
The rest of Europe? If you fight one of them you now have to fight them all. Plus those Swedes and Brits are taking jobs away from Americans here with their imported vehicles.
South America?
Africa?
Antarctica?
OK Canada is on our side because the UAW and CUAW state that for sourcing purposes we are one country called N. America.
You do realize that this is getting ridiculous right?
If you can't tell/see who our enemy's really are then I'm not the one who is ridiculous.
I'll give you a Top 3 since you asked.
#1 Iran
#2 North Korea
#3 China
Japan, is only at war with us economically.
Remember I work for our government in national security and thats all I can say without specifics.
Rocky
What you are missing is that at the time British capital made industrialization possible in North America, the anti-Capitalist writings were examplified by books like Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities." They were predicting end of civilization just like anti-capitalists do today. Glad you agree they were wrong.
We do not live in vaccum, nor did people in the 1950's and 60's. There have not been a major successful new domestic carmaker since the early 1930's, long before important compeition became even an issue in the mid-1970's. Why? Because the rise of the Union in the late 1920's to early 30's and subsequent union wage and benefit package made it uneconomic to invest in a new carmaker in the US. Starting in the early 1950's, auto industry execs, led by GM, realized that co-opting the Union was a great way to keep out any wannabe competition, simply because new comers would have no chance of offering the pay and benefit package (like retirement and helth benefits) with any credibility that GM had. Wannabe new domestics would not even have a chance to get started as they would not be able to find workers or deal with the Union bosses knocking on their door. That's why real competition had to come from overseas, first the British, then the Germans, then the Japanese, then the Koreans. The collaboration between incumbent oligopoly and the Union had made domestic new car venture a wasteland.
That's usually what eventually happens to regulations . . . even if started with the best of intentions, they are eventually seized and perverted by monopolists to the detriment of competition. Power corrupts.
There are two diametricly opposed phenomena that are lumped together as "globalization." One is the broadening of the market place; people are able to make choices beyond what had been available in the local market place, thanks to advancement in transportation and communication technologies. The other is the attempted to aggrandize government, giving it reaches beyond what was the nation-state boundary. The second form is not free-market or capitalist at all. It's just plain bigger government. All the so-called "fair-trade" proposals fall under that category. What is fair in trade other than letting a buyer and seller voluntarily decide what they want to do without co-ercion from either of them or from a third party? Regulated "fair-trade" is nothing more than giving government a hand in what can and can not be done in commercial transactions. As we know, that government power inevitably get usurped by incumbent monopolies to the detriment of would-be new-entrants, just like what happened to domestic carmaking.
If you are really hung up on "The Mark," it should not take a genius to figure out which of the two sides wants to put a chip in everyone: the free-marketeer who want everyone to engagement in interactions with each other on voluntary basis, or a government that wants to have a say in everything that transpires between mature adults.
This may come as a HUGE shock, but conversation should be focused on the automotive industry.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Oh, me too! I'd love to be able to check out the new 2007 Hudsons, Packards, Nashes, and Studebakers rather than a constellation of Asian garbage.
Per the living in the 1950s and '60s comment from somebody, let's go to Dr. Brown's place and borrow his DeLorean and go back in time and stay there. The only things I'd miss about the present is the Internet and my DVD player.
I used to do a lot of business in Philly and went there once a week or more through all the 80's and 90's from Bensalem to south Philly to York and back. I'm familiar with the area from living in Jersey. It's tough but every big city is.
Music, movie and fashion are all subjective. TV certainly has gotten a lot better since the 1950's; it was 360x270 B&W bubble vision in the 1950's vs. today's 1940x1080 color HD flat screen. Crime rate is the inevitable result of the socialist monopoly in the criminal justice system: resources get misallocated due to agitation by a vocal minority bent on spending someone else' money. How many people would pay for a war on drugs out of their own pocket if they have to pay for private security guards to fight it? Since the police department and courts only get increased funding when crime rates go up; guess what PD, courts and legislators would do? They do what every one would do: they want more money to play with. That's what happens when there is no market competition.
edit: i have tears in my eyes. something more substantial than cupholders or control button sizes.
I'm kind of like you in that I've always had a fondness for older music and pop culture...but at the same time, I find myself reminiscing about my childhood in the 80s, and I know those weren't all bright days. I think the past always looks greater than reality.
I'll take 1950s-60s house price to income ratios, for sure. Standards of living are not rising over time.
First, the goal of a tariffs (the subject of this thread) is to RAISE the price of competitive products. How will enacting tariffs LOWER the prices of Japanese cars? That simply makes no sense.
Second, if the prices of Japanese vehicles really are "artificially" high, then people would not buy them, as they would be considered overpriced.
If you doubt that, check out sales of the Acura RL. It is hardly setting the automotive world on fire, primarily because people do not want to pay $50,000 for a V-6 sedan that looks like an Accord on steroids, even if it does have an Acura badge.
rockylee: I blame that on our current government policy's that are unfavorable to american citizens that would like to start their own buisness here in the U.S. That use to be the american dream and its only obtainable for foreign company's willing to invest into the U.S. or should I say gradually purchase my country.
No, I blame the enormous investment required to start up an automobile company, because so many companies with so much experience are already offering excellent products.
Designing and manufacturing a new vehicle is a tremendously complicated endeavor. It would take a new company years to catch up to the experience of a GM, Toyota, Honda or BMW. Given the number of excellent choices out there, most customers aren't going to take a chance on a newcomer. That is the biggest obstacle to any new entries in the automobile market in North America.
rockylee: Like I said if we would protect our current buisness and create new oppertunity's for new buisness we could have more internal competition and its a win for the consumer and america's workers.
We have plenty of internal competition, and it is benefiting customers tremendously. We are getting more bang for our automotive buck than ever before.
And if we expand the definition of "auto worker" to include those who are laboring in the American plants of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, then we have to conclude that this competition has benefited them, too.
Let's face it, most of these people are enjoying far higher pay and benefits working for these companies (given their skill and education level) than they would have if these companies had chosen not to invest in production capacity here.
Just because they aren't UAW members does not mean that they are not "America's workers."
rockylee: That's a shared opinion by many americans. I however somewhat disagree with it based on what I believe and said in my earlier posts.
I think a review of history would show that my friend is right on the mark.
Interesting, as I would have placed Packard and Buick in exactly the same positions.
I would have put the post-1955 Ramblers with the Koreans, particularly Hyundai.
fintail: I'm kind of like you in that I've always had a fondness for older music and pop culture...but at the same time, I find myself reminiscing about my childhood in the 80s, and I know those weren't all bright days. I think the past always looks greater than reality.
The past usually looks good in retrospect, especially since most of us tend to remember the good parts and conveniently forget the bad ones. My childhood in the 1970s was wonderful in many ways, but I wouldn't want to go back to those days, because there was also a lot that wasn't great.
As for the automobile market - it is continually changing, and companies either change with it, or die. It is a dynamic market, for which we should be grateful. Complaining about it is basically useless.
History marches on, and from time to time, cleans house to keep the good and sweep out either the bad or the just plain useless.
I have the feeling that we are on the verge of another year like 1954, when the weaknesses of the old independents, which had been masked by the postwar sellers' market, were finally revealed, and those companies soon disappeared or merged.
A few of the import marques are relatively weak - VW, Mitsubishi, for example - but the biggest collection of weak brands is the old medium-priced domestic marques. Over the past 25 years, the domestics have rendered their own medium-priced marques irrelevant through badge engineering and full lineups that extended into lower price levels. The chickens will be coming home to roost very soon.
I would be willing to bet that Buick, Pontiac and Mercury will all be gone within 5-7 years. And no tariffs or "Buy American" campaigns or appeals to nostalgia will change that.
I wonder what Studebaker would be now...Saturn without the GM connection?
I like to think somehow Buick will magically reinvent itself...but I certainly don't see a bright future for Mercury and Pontiac. GM really doesn't need more than 'norma;' and 'highline' anyway, seeing as the competition succeeds with that exact mix.
The 1954 comparison is interesting...as 1955 followed it with massive design changes for most every make. I wonder if we'll see that again too, if some of the dead weight is shed. It does appear that the industry is headed for some kind of realignment, on par with the death of the independents.
I just don't get why it's the governments responsibility to pass laws that help the big 2.5 out of their financial holes.
Rocky Lee works for National Security? Top secret? :sick:
I hope he's not Jewish what with Henry Ford being such an anti-Semite and all. Consulting with Hitler, ahhh, Ford is an enemy to the General. It's all making sense to me now.
Rocky works for National Security? Top secret?
Rocky works for National Security? Top secret? :mad:
I wonder if we'll ever see the day when we can write a whole post just using the Emotorcons?
1950's was a cycle low for housing price because all the post-war construction and at the same time regulations had not yet caught up with development in the then new suburbs. Housing prices were very high relative to income in the 40's; that's why people stayed with their parents even after marriage, thanks to the myriads of regulations on house building in the cities. That's why housing development (and road construction) took off in the early 50's. 1980's saw another high in housing price, some of which were not revisited until in recent years. 1980's income was a lot lower than today.
Although the rate of improvement has slowed down in the last half century thanks to increasingly higher effective tax rate, standards of living are still rising in the US. Higher quality cars are a clear evidence of that.
Maybe I can explain this easier ?
Lets say GM and Ford can build a car for the same exact costs. They sell the car at the same price. Toyota will make 38% more profit than GM selling the same vehical exact vehical because of the currency manipulation advantage they enjoy per unit. 38% more profit per unit is a good chunk of change when you sell millions of cars a year over here and can invest it in R&D and buy better quality materials. My solution was to correct the lie and impose a tariff to fix the manipulation advantage. It's bad enough already for the big 3. They do not need to be cheated out of car sales because our government refused to act on something that is as criminal as this. :mad:
Second, if the prices of Japanese vehicles really are "artificially" high, then people would not buy them, as they would be considered overpriced.
Sorry I used the wrong word. They have a "artificial" profit margin advantage. Toyota, if they had to settle for profit margins closer to what the big 3 recieve you might see some cost cutting inside those japanse cars. If they want to keep the profit margin high they would have to raise prices higher. GM, Ford, Chrysler, would then be able to start fighting back since the Japanese, wouldn't be swimming in money like hey are now. Most of us could run a buisness as pretty successful as if we were given all the breaks and advantages in corporate life they get. I'm not saying toyota, is managed bad and still wouldn't be successful but they wouldn't have enjoyed the profit margins they do now and would have to cost cut or raise prices. I also seriously doubt toyota would of passed any of the big 3 car comapny's without this huge advantage. :sick:
If you doubt that, check out sales of the Acura RL. It is hardly setting the automotive world on fire, primarily because people do not want to pay $50,000 for a V-6 sedan that looks like an Accord on steroids, even if it does have an Acura badge.
The only thing I can see holding the RL, back is the engine. If Acura wanted to use a V-6 they should of turboed the V-6 and gave it at least 350 horsepower. A hybrid motor wouldn't of hurt either to help compensate for the SH-AWD fuel mileage loss. If they would of done both of these things I have no doubt the RL, would be more highly desired.
No, I blame the enormous investment required to start up an automobile company, because so many companies with so much experience are already offering excellent products.
That is true also....However small buisness gets the shaft on getting help. If we had national healthcare a major cost for small buisness you would see more growth and success from small buisness. I also believe small buisness should get bigger tax breaks and one way of doing it is giving them a tax break for every american employee they hire.
And if we expand the definition of "auto worker" to include those who are laboring in the American plants of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, then we have to conclude that this competition has benefited them, too.
That simply isn't true. Why ? Well look at how many auto jobs have been lost at the big 3 compared to the number of jobs gained by the transplants ??? It's night and day or as y'all say apples to oranges. We are in the hole, big time !!!!
Let's face it, most of these people are enjoying far higher pay and benefits working for these companies (given their skill and education level) than they would have if these companies had chosen not to invest in production capacity here.
If the transplants wouldn't of came over here and recieved all these luxury's of being in buisness in the U.S. then the big 3 and supplier plants wouldn't of never had to lay-off tens of thousands of workers. I would be working for GM or Delphi, right now if these type of loop holes weren't allowed. :mad: That also includes the thousands of jobs lost and/or canceled in the white collar sectors as a result of this. :mad:
Just because they aren't UAW members does not mean that they are not "America's workers."
I understand that.....Many good americans work for the transplants and most are thankful they have a job with them. I however wouldn't want to work under those conditions because I don't like people that walk around saying "my company will take care of me" when its nothing further than the truth. All they are is a badge number and the ones that preach that BS, are the ones you need to watch out for because they will tattle tale on you and/or give you a knife in the back just to look good to there supervisor because they think its a way to move up or feel important :mad:
A real team is found only at unionized plants.
I think a review of history would show that my friend is right on the mark.
I suppose you can find area's in history to prove you right. Times in history do to the sheer amount being made each and everyday can be twisted/spun enough to prove anyone right.
Rocky
Well maybe where your from but certainly not in Michigan.
In Michigan, the 1980's was the golden decade for wages. My parents money went way further back then than it does today. Housing was way cheaper back then and wages were much higher back then than they are today and good jobs were plentiful. :sick:
Rocky
OK just to be clear. Say GM/F/T all sell mid-sized cars here in the US like a Malibu/Fusion/Camry. Two of them are made here in the US and one is made in Mexico.
How do you impose a tariff on a vehicle made here in the US by US workers with US materials? It won't work.
In addition the Camry already sells at a 10-20% premium over the Malibu and Fusion net-for-net. What you need to do is get on the horn to Dearborn and tell them to stop discounting the Fu-lans because they are giving up a ton of profit by underselling the Camry. Heck if they sold the Fulans at the same prices as the Camry they'd make $2000-$3000 more per vehicle which then could be sent back to Mexico to improve the plant and to use better materials in the vehicle. That's $400-$500 Million dollars extra that Ford is giving away. Ford just needs to have the backbone to do it.
How do you impose a tariff on a vehicle made here in the US by US workers with US materials? It won't work.
I'll be honest that is a hard one to answer.
I'm just trying to find a workable solution to even out the playing field to save our domestic auto-industry and tariffs is just an idea not the ultimate solution per say.
In addition the Camry already sells at a 10-20% premium over the Malibu and Fusion net-for-net. What you need to do is get on the horn to Dearborn and tell them to stop discounting the Fu-lans because they are giving up a ton of profit by underselling the Camry. Heck if they sold the Fulans at the same prices as the Camry they'd make $2000-$3000 more per vehicle which then could be sent back to Mexico to improve the plant and to use better materials in the vehicle. That's $400-$500 Million dollars extra that Ford is giving away. Ford just needs to have the backbone to do it.
kd, you are right and wrong on this one. I agree if ford made the fusion good enough it would sell even better. However if your Japanese competitor is making thousands of dollars more profit per unit because of the currency manipulation factor thus they can afford to turn around and put some of it back into their product to improve it and still out profit ford. Toyota, can simply invest a few thousand dollars more into its product to out shine the ford and still come out WAY ahead of ford in profits. They can charge like you said 10-20% more for the camry because the car is 10-20% or more better than the fusion especially on the interior and gadgetology. This also means cars like the carolla, can be manufactored cheaper and thus toyota can undercut their domestic counter parts $3-4K and make a good profit instead of Ford making a wafer thin one. The consumers also have been brain washed by Toyota's propoganda machine "our media" that there flawless car won't break down ever keeping residuals very high also making them desirable when you are ready to sell !!!! :surprise:
I'd just like to see the domestics be allowed to have a even playing field. If the domestics still go bankrupt under such conditions still then I won't have nearly as much sympathy for them as I do now.
Rocky
The government can't get crap right, why should they be responsible to make things fair for idiots who dug their own grave?
Rocky
Rocky
Interesting..but backward. How can you have currency manipulation if the vehicle is bought, built and sold here? It's all in US$.
According to Edmunds the V6 Camry TMV is $24700 and the V6 SE Fusion is $22400. The reason Toyota makes more profit than Ford is .... they ask a higher price for it and the market pays that price.
Ditto the Corolla. It doesn't undercut the Focus and Cobalt it sells for a higher price than either one. This is where the profit comes from.
The solution for F/GM is to hold the line and demand that the market pay the real value for their vehicles. Don't sell for less than Toyota, sell for the same price.