I think some trucks and Jeeps get exported, maybe some specialty models like Corvettes/Mustangs/Cadillacs, but most of the American passenger car fleet is very market specific.
What does GM Ford and Chrysler build here that is compatable with other markets that they don't already build there???
Exactly.
The reason BMW exports so much from SC is because it's the only BMW plant (outside of Russia) that makes X vehicles. They decided to export from here because they didn't want to invest in a plant in Europe for what they don't expect to be a big market. Also, with the weakness of the dollar it's cheaper to make them here than in Europe.
Want to impress me? Build the 3 series here and export them.
The first vehicles built at the BMW Manufacturing plant were E36 3er sedans; the Germans wanted to make sure that the new factory could build cars as well as the plants in Bavaria. The E36/7 Z3 was the first BMW to be built only at Greer. Sedan production was phased out and the X5 was brought on line(the E83 X3 was built at the Magna Steyr facility in Graz, Austria). The decision was then made to build all X trucks(save the E84 X1) in the US, and Z4 production was moved to Europe. FWIW, my wife's E90 LCI 328i was built in South Africa...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Bottom line, BMW is exporting more vehicles than any other US automaker. That is what the US automakers used to do. Maybe the UAW got too greedy and forced the mfg off shore. Seems the foreign automakers are doing fine with US workers building vehicles for other markets. Toyota is exporting as is MB.
I never had a problem with the quality of US auto workers, as we have the best people on the planet...it's just that once they become UAW, I see the problems as we have discussed before...
We knew this once the Ohio Honda plant, years ago, began making Accords (for eat of the Miss river) that were rated higher quality than the Accords imported from Japan (for west of the Miss river)...
I think the problem with the UAW is two-fold: It drives up labor and overhead costs with excessive work rules and featherbedding and then it instills a constant environment of dissension, wrecking attitudes and morale. Both of those are profit killers which then leads the company into desperate cost cutting and low bid vendors to offset it. Really, not much different than many other unions, just the UAW is much bigger and therefore more visible than most of the others.
You are correct the UAW is no longer the big bully on the block. They are wimpering puppies. However in my discussions with current members, they still carry that entitlement mentality that got the Domestics into trouble.
>It drives up labor and overhead costs with excessive work rules and featherbedding and then it instills a constant environment of dissension, wrecking attitudes and morale. Both of those are profit killers which then leads the company into desperate cost cutting and low bid vendors to offset it.
Right. And include the excessively generous benefits paid after retirement. No deductibles on any kind of care, vision, dental, health; same for surviving spouses. Huge cost over the Obamacare level insurance that the UAW and others now reject.
> Really, not much different than many other unions, just the UAW is much bigger and therefore more visible than most of the others.
>You are correct the UAW is no longer the big bully on the block. They are wimpering puppies. However in my discussions with current members, they still carry that entitlement mentality that got the Domestics into trouble.
If this union strikes, I wonder if the admin will refer to them as "holding hostage," "terrorists," "extortioists," and all those other terrible names that were used about the standoff in DC recently. That's exactly what the BART was doing in CA from my view.
unions have a right to strike. It's part of a legal contract. However, there is nothing in the constitution that allows members of congress to shut down the government or even suggests that they might.
I agree that unions have a right to strike, except I don't understand why critical state and local government employees like police, fire, public transport, etc. can strike when federal employees cannot. None of them should be able to. However, there is an un-level playing field between unions and companies. A union can pick a local strike for almost any reason, trumped up or not. A company cannot generally lock out employees except after the contract expires. They need to be on more level ground, but I don't see that sort of legislation on the horizon.
Politicians work for their wealthy special interest contributors. What they do to their other constituencies really isn't a concern for them, except maybe right before an election. Money talks and Congressmen walk toward wherever they smell it! I've started deliberately voting against a candidate if they seem to have way more money and advertisements. I figure either they are too rich to understand the middle class, or more likely, they will be "owned" once elected.
> However, there is an un-level playing field between unions and companies. A union can pick a local strike for almost any reason, trumped up or not.
The union, UAW in this case, has the ability to withhold services to the point of ruining a company by holding their product hostage. IIRC, the auto union would strike whichever of the BIG 3 were more profitable. By cutting their production for weeks and months, the company would be not profitable. And the other two would have had the advantage of picking up extra sales while the one company was being terrorized by the strike.
IIRC this was how in the early 90s the UAW got a lot of the problematic facets of their agreement with GM. GM was profitable and projected continued profitability, and GM gave in fairly easily to the union. Of course the management was wrong, incompetent, or just plain bad, however someone wishes to describe it, at how they allowed the union so much financial advantage.
>if they seem to have way more money and advertisements.
In some cases, that comes from groups supporting the philosophy of a candidate and they put their money behind them with advertising. The candidate may not even have control over the advertising because of the way these funds are set up.
Of course, this can work the other way, and the funds and those who are behind them expect quid pro quo after the election. In some cases a large group such as the UAW or SEIU can provide lots of bodies who do lots of door-to-door work and lots of work getting people registered and getting them out to vote. That sometimes is worth more than financial backing for advertisements. Large groups can also provide funds for paying workers to recruit for registration and get out the vote campaigns and I believe those are outside the reporting on the statements. That proved to be much more effective in the last campaign than some of the dollars from the unions donated for advertising.
The city of voters who follow the Constitution and vote to not pay for a stadium for rich franchise owners and team players to use at the expense of the citizenry. They let the players and franchise owner build their own.
>Many Americans don't even have that basic level of political understanding,
Heck, many Americans, including wealthy ones don't really have much economic sense either. Take professional sports or Hollywood. Why in the hell pay so much? In most cases there is someone in the wings who has similar talent and will work for a lot less. Then there are the long term player contracts that are fixed priced without any performance factors (and they are based on "today's" facts). Now that is just one of the dumbest things going on in commerce! Same goes for senior corporate executives. No way most of these people are that excessively talented compared to the bench out there. In fact, if any of these high priced exec's dropped dead, I'd bet in almost all of the cases after a month or less no one would even notice or miss the individual and business would go on just fine.
At least the UAW has the sense to vote for its own interests.
I'd argue that the UAW only had that sense in the short term. In the longer term, their behaviors killed their golden geese. If they had been more reasonable and partnered with their host companies, they might have much higher employment today.
Well now you are asking AMERICANS to think "long term"? That simply is not in our fundamental cultural make-up, seriously...I don't mean that sarcastically.
Most people look for short term gains..it's almost part of our survival instinct, to get what we can while we can.
Just look at all the young people today saying "oh, I don't need to buy health insurance"....typical.
Well now you are asking AMERICANS to think "long term"? That simply is not in our fundamental cultural make-up, seriously...I don't mean that sarcastically.
Well lamentably, you are correct. Some of us are longer-term thinkers, but clearly not most of us.
The South and Southwest are far worse than the states in that article. You can take a ruler, put it at the top of North Carolina and draw a line all the way across to Arizona (not CA), to find the highest poverty rates in the USA. They are all below the line you drew.
And you'll have to throw in Michigan, Oregon, Kentucky and West Virginia.
California Poverty Rate Highest In Nation Based On New Census Department Figures. California has a poverty rate of 23.5 percent, the highest of any state in the country, according to figures released this week by the United States Census Bureau. The only other geographic region with an equivalent poverty rate is the District of Columbia, with 23.2 percent. The second most poverty-stricken state was Florida, at 19.5 percent.
If you don't adjust for cost of living variations, the most prosperous states will show the highest poverty rates. California has the 8th largest economy in the world (larger than France) and a budget surplus.
A UAW worker well outside the poverty line in Michigan is going to look mighty poor in La Jolla or Newport Beach.
Most of the "boom towns" in the USA right now are in California and Texas (with one or two on the east coast). It might be expensive to live in some of them, but opportunities for advancement are also good. So at least there is an "up" for poor people there. In Michigan or the South/SE, most poor people are going nowhere.
But, nothing in that article suggests that the situation they find themselves in is the result of the global economy. Health care worker and two construction workers - those jobs are not being off-shored or exported.
"Most of the "boom towns" in the USA right now are in California and Texas".
Not sure about CA, but definitely Texas and other southern states. Time Magazine had a recent article about the Texas boom. People are still migrating there, despite the woefully inadequate social net and low ranking public schools, because of the opportunities in Texas are perceived to be better than in other states.
The irony of the so-called "global economy"---the miscalculation by all the "experts", was that somehow a global economy would be more stable, more solid, and not subject to the localized shocks and panics that plagued individual country-wide economies.
This has proven to be incorrect. If anything, the global economy feels no less volatile to me than national ones.
All the unions got kicked out of California too eh?
The Trade Unions have been hurt badly by the illegal immigrant population working under the table. Both on large and small projects. Mostly under minority hire rules. Public employee Unions are alive and well, decimating the tax payers with every new contract they extort from them.
California has the 8th largest economy in the world (larger than France) and a budget surplus.
I can see the humor in that statement. It is based on lies by our governor, not on any kind of facts. Our CALPers pension fund is owed as much as $100 billion we do not have. There is NO surplus. Only more debt and a downgraded debt rating. It just depends on who's rag you read and believe.
California taxpayers fund CalPERS’s pensions and ultimately guarantee them — now with $260 billion-plus in assets. But it also has growing unfunded liabilities — pegged at about $80 billion or so by CalPERS (much higher by some critics).
"Most of the "boom towns" in the USA right now are in California and Texas".
I am not sure what you consider a boom town. I cannot name one in CA. If they have unemployment above 6% they are NOT a boom town. CA has 35% of all welfare recipients in the USA with about 10% of the population. The only reason people are spending money is we are borrowing from the future and handing it to them to spend. We are losing companies in CA at the net rate of over 5 per week.
Silicon Valley says Bloomberg, because growth is not dependent on local markets.
According the Economist and Business Week, not exactly hotbeds of liberality, California's budget surplus is real indeed. Question is, how long term is it?
One of the biggest suckers on Cal's money isn't unions--it's to pay the Feds for back money owed on unemployment insurance. ($10 billion owed)
California did something that is incomprehensible to the rest of the country---cut spending deeply AND raised taxes.
Could it implode? Sure--2008 tells us that. But for now, Cal is doing pretty well, compared to the last decade of troubles.
The "global economy" is just a ruse to increase the reserves of some large corporations. Any human benefit is unintended - it is not a movement based in altruism. As you say, it is also very susceptible to the actions of speculators and other guillotine-worthy financial criminals.
Some of the PNW seems to be doing well too - along with areas blessed with certain natural resources. But the old industrial belt and the old south - not so many bright spots.
Could it implode? Sure--2008 tells us that. But for now, Cal is doing pretty well, compared to the last decade of troubles.
You have to use some very fuzzy math to make the CA economy look good. The San Jouquin Valley is a huge mess after the Bay area cut off their water supply for irrigation. 30% unemployment in much of the central valley. You can try and defend the Public Employee Unions, They are the problem in this state along with the ECO NUTS that have made it a paradise for the RICH, and a hell for the middle class tax payers.
In an interview with the new boss in Australia, he asked about government intervention in business. I think he knows what is needed.
You lost the auto sector last year when Ford announced it was moving out.
We haven’t lost the auto sector. It has struggled in Australia, particularly in recent years. . . . Partly that was because of poor policies put in place by the former government, which [imposed] additional red tape and industrial regulation and made businesses less competitive. Ford announced that it is pulling out as of 2016, but we are very hopeful that we will keep Toyota. We would like to see an ongoing motor industry in this country.
That is part of diversifying the economy?
We are not in the business of being prescriptive to businesspeople. Governments that go around picking winners usually end up spending a lot of money for no good purpose. If we can get taxes and regulation down and provide an environment that is stable and predictable and benign, we are confident the creativity of Australian entrepreneurs and the excellence of our workers will do the rest.
Comments
http://www.industryweek.com/expansion-management/bmw-south-carolina-plant-larges- t-us-exporter
Thanks Gary and Fin for your comments - I knew I had read those things but didn't have the details.
Are any of the D3 making vehicles in the US for foreign export? (except for US>Canada which I would assume is common?)
Exactly.
The reason BMW exports so much from SC is because it's the only BMW plant (outside of Russia) that makes X vehicles. They decided to export from here because they didn't want to invest in a plant in Europe for what they don't expect to be a big market. Also, with the weakness of the dollar it's cheaper to make them here than in Europe.
Want to impress me? Build the 3 series here and export them.
FWIW, my wife's E90 LCI 328i was built in South Africa...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
But IIRC, those were not for export.
We knew this once the Ohio Honda plant, years ago, began making Accords (for eat of the Miss river) that were rated higher quality than the Accords imported from Japan (for west of the Miss river)...
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/HealthDay681376_20131022_FDA_Probes_Dog_Illnes- ses_Tied_to_Jerky_Treats.html
Right. And include the excessively generous benefits paid after retirement. No deductibles on any kind of care, vision, dental, health; same for surviving spouses. Huge cost over the Obamacare level insurance that the UAW and others now reject.
> Really, not much different than many other unions, just the UAW is much bigger and therefore more visible than most of the others.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If this union strikes, I wonder if the admin will refer to them as "holding hostage," "terrorists," "extortioists," and all those other terrible names that were used about the standoff in DC recently. That's exactly what the BART was doing in CA from my view.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The union, UAW in this case, has the ability to withhold services to the point of ruining a company by holding their product hostage. IIRC, the auto union would strike whichever of the BIG 3 were more profitable. By cutting their production for weeks and months, the company would be not profitable. And the other two would have had the advantage of picking up extra sales while the one company was being terrorized by the strike.
IIRC this was how in the early 90s the UAW got a lot of the problematic facets of their agreement with GM. GM was profitable and projected continued profitability, and GM gave in fairly easily to the union. Of course the management was wrong, incompetent, or just plain bad, however someone wishes to describe it, at how they allowed the union so much financial advantage.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In some cases, that comes from groups supporting the philosophy of a candidate and they put their money behind them with advertising. The candidate may not even have control over the advertising because of the way these funds are set up.
Of course, this can work the other way, and the funds and those who are behind them expect quid pro quo after the election. In some cases a large group such as the UAW or SEIU can provide lots of bodies who do lots of door-to-door work and lots of work getting people registered and getting them out to vote. That sometimes is worth more than financial backing for advertisements. Large groups can also provide funds for paying workers to recruit for registration and get out the vote campaigns and I believe those are outside the reporting on the statements. That proved to be much more effective in the last campaign than some of the dollars from the unions donated for advertising.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A union is just a self-interest group, like any other, that uses strikes instead of lobby money to get what they want.
The UAW hits an automaker in the pocketbook to get concessions.
A major league sports team enriches the pocketbook of others to get a new sports stadium.
So who is squeaky clean here?
>Many Americans don't even have that basic level of political understanding,
Ain't that the truth.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'd argue that the UAW only had that sense in the short term. In the longer term, their behaviors killed their golden geese. If they had been more reasonable and partnered with their host companies, they might have much higher employment today.
Most people look for short term gains..it's almost part of our survival instinct, to get what we can while we can.
Just look at all the young people today saying "oh, I don't need to buy health insurance"....typical.
Well lamentably, you are correct. Some of us are longer-term thinkers, but clearly not most of us.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20131025_Study__Deep_poverty_on_the_rise_in_De- laware_and_Camden_Counties.html
And you'll have to throw in Michigan, Oregon, Kentucky and West Virginia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html
A UAW worker well outside the poverty line in Michigan is going to look mighty poor in La Jolla or Newport Beach.
But, nothing in that article suggests that the situation they find themselves in is the result of the global economy. Health care worker and two construction workers - those jobs are not being off-shored or exported.
Not sure about CA, but definitely Texas and other southern states. Time Magazine had a recent article about the Texas boom. People are still migrating there, despite the woefully inadequate social net and low ranking public schools, because of the opportunities in Texas are perceived to be better than in other states.
This has proven to be incorrect. If anything, the global economy feels no less volatile to me than national ones.
The Trade Unions have been hurt badly by the illegal immigrant population working under the table. Both on large and small projects. Mostly under minority hire rules. Public employee Unions are alive and well, decimating the tax payers with every new contract they extort from them.
California has the 8th largest economy in the world (larger than France) and a budget surplus.
I can see the humor in that statement. It is based on lies by our governor, not on any kind of facts. Our CALPers pension fund is owed as much as $100 billion we do not have. There is NO surplus. Only more debt and a downgraded debt rating. It just depends on who's rag you read and believe.
California taxpayers fund CalPERS’s pensions and ultimately guarantee them — now with $260 billion-plus in assets. But it also has growing unfunded liabilities — pegged at about $80 billion or so by CalPERS (much higher by some critics).
http://www.riabiz.com/a/5270811782938624/a-careful-look-into-whether-calpers-is-- ticking-along-or-a-ticking-time-bomb
"Most of the "boom towns" in the USA right now are in California and Texas".
I am not sure what you consider a boom town. I cannot name one in CA. If they have unemployment above 6% they are NOT a boom town. CA has 35% of all welfare recipients in the USA with about 10% of the population. The only reason people are spending money is we are borrowing from the future and handing it to them to spend. We are losing companies in CA at the net rate of over 5 per week.
According the Economist and Business Week, not exactly hotbeds of liberality, California's budget surplus is real indeed. Question is, how long term is it?
One of the biggest suckers on Cal's money isn't unions--it's to pay the Feds for back money owed on unemployment insurance. ($10 billion owed)
California did something that is incomprehensible to the rest of the country---cut spending deeply AND raised taxes.
Could it implode? Sure--2008 tells us that. But for now, Cal is doing pretty well, compared to the last decade of troubles.
Here's an interesting site dealing with state-by-state economic and human development - hard to blame unions for any of these gaps or problem areas.
You have to use some very fuzzy math to make the CA economy look good. The San Jouquin Valley is a huge mess after the Bay area cut off their water supply for irrigation. 30% unemployment in much of the central valley. You can try and defend the Public Employee Unions, They are the problem in this state along with the ECO NUTS that have made it a paradise for the RICH, and a hell for the middle class tax payers.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_23921417/drought-conditions-californi- a-are-manufactured-by-politicians
You lost the auto sector last year when Ford announced it was moving out.
We haven’t lost the auto sector. It has struggled in Australia, particularly in recent years. . . . Partly that was because of poor policies put in place by the former government, which [imposed] additional red tape and industrial regulation and made businesses less competitive. Ford announced that it is pulling out as of 2016, but we are very hopeful that we will keep Toyota. We would like to see an ongoing motor industry in this country.
That is part of diversifying the economy?
We are not in the business of being prescriptive to businesspeople. Governments that go around picking winners usually end up spending a lot of money for no good purpose. If we can get taxes and regulation down and provide an environment that is stable and predictable and benign, we are confident the creativity of Australian entrepreneurs and the excellence of our workers will do the rest.
Having a good economy doesn't imply "fault free". When someone burns down a building, you don't fix it all in the snap of the fingers.
One thing for sure...California is doing much better as a one-party system than it did as a two-party brawl.