Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I had a 2010 Ford Escape. It was great at first, but eventually had so many problems and kept nickel-and-diming me till I got rid of it this past xmas.. The radio only worked when it wanted to and it was some crazy custom ford radio that would cost $1000 to fix. I always had a tire pressure warning light even though my tires were perfect, even got brand new tires and that didn't fix it. And the last straw was when my trunk decided it didn't feel like opening anymore. Apparently, Ford used some crap insulating window stuff on the back windows which leaked every time it rained.. not a big leak, but I always had faint water streaks going down the back window that I always had to clean. Turns out that water was dripping down into the lock mechanism and it rusts it away till it breaks and one day you just can't open it anymore. It was a known issue and I found plenty of youtube videos telling me how to fix it myself, but I didn't care anymore.

So I traded it in for a 2015 Jeep Renegade. Lots of fun to drive, no problems yet.. was built in italy, and i'm italian, so that's OK by me. What I really wanted was a Chrysler 300, but my girlfriend wouldn't let me buy an "old person car"

Best and most reliable car I ever owned was a 2004 Honda Element.

You do realize Ford stands for Fix Or Repair Daily, don't you?

Nope it's Found On Road Dead

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I've lived long enough to see the rotation of "Made in Japan", "Made in Taiwan", "Made in China", "Made in Viet Nam", "Made in India", "Made in Mexico"...and it's lead to a global lift of people out of poverty, which, besides creating a significantly overall better quality of life for huge swaths of the people of the world

While that's good for everyone else.. How exactly is that creating a better quality of life for the people still living here?

It's really not a matter of "...the people still living here?", or there, or anywhere for that matter. And understand, I'm not being cold to the plight of people affected by this, but this is the nature of capitalism. Money seeks opportunity and companies seek the best return for their shareholders, period. Labor, particularly low skilled, is being exported by every country...lots of European and Asian auto makers down in Mexico!...or is being replaced through technology. I'm sure in upcoming years we'll hear about those factories currently being built in Mexico becoming more and more automated and the Mexican workers being laid off.
So a bit more directly to your point, as I mentioned in my previous point, the exportation of jobs creates wealth in a country that usually is in dire need of it...hence the abundance of cheap labor...and that creates a middle class with money to spend, and an opportunity to sell into with our products and services. That means jobs and services here, selling over there. That means less expensive goods available here. That means opportunity in higher paying fields over here, i.e. lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects that can now market their expertise to this growing economy created by the growth/establishment of a healthy, upwardly mobile base now in need of those services.

Thats the argument, hwoever our trade balances with these countries have done nothing but deteriorated. In actuality wealth is transferred. A small group benefits but the majority do not.

The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

 loki old fart wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I had a 2010 Ford Escape. It was great at first, but eventually had so many problems and kept nickel-and-diming me till I got rid of it this past xmas.. The radio only worked when it wanted to and it was some crazy custom ford radio that would cost $1000 to fix. I always had a tire pressure warning light even though my tires were perfect, even got brand new tires and that didn't fix it. And the last straw was when my trunk decided it didn't feel like opening anymore. Apparently, Ford used some crap insulating window stuff on the back windows which leaked every time it rained.. not a big leak, but I always had faint water streaks going down the back window that I always had to clean. Turns out that water was dripping down into the lock mechanism and it rusts it away till it breaks and one day you just can't open it anymore. It was a known issue and I found plenty of youtube videos telling me how to fix it myself, but I didn't care anymore.

So I traded it in for a 2015 Jeep Renegade. Lots of fun to drive, no problems yet.. was built in italy, and i'm italian, so that's OK by me. What I really wanted was a Chrysler 300, but my girlfriend wouldn't let me buy an "old person car"

Best and most reliable car I ever owned was a 2004 Honda Element.

You do realize Ford stands for Fix Or Repair Daily, don't you?

Nope it's Found On Road Dead

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I've lived long enough to see the rotation of "Made in Japan", "Made in Taiwan", "Made in China", "Made in Viet Nam", "Made in India", "Made in Mexico"...and it's lead to a global lift of people out of poverty, which, besides creating a significantly overall better quality of life for huge swaths of the people of the world

While that's good for everyone else.. How exactly is that creating a better quality of life for the people still living here?

It's really not a matter of "...the people still living here?", or there, or anywhere for that matter. And understand, I'm not being cold to the plight of people affected by this, but this is the nature of capitalism. Money seeks opportunity and companies seek the best return for their shareholders, period. Labor, particularly low skilled, is being exported by every country...lots of European and Asian auto makers down in Mexico!...or is being replaced through technology. I'm sure in upcoming years we'll hear about those factories currently being built in Mexico becoming more and more automated and the Mexican workers being laid off.
So a bit more directly to your point, as I mentioned in my previous point, the exportation of jobs creates wealth in a country that usually is in dire need of it...hence the abundance of cheap labor...and that creates a middle class with money to spend, and an opportunity to sell into with our products and services. That means jobs and services here, selling over there. That means less expensive goods available here. That means opportunity in higher paying fields over here, i.e. lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects that can now market their expertise to this growing economy created by the growth/establishment of a healthy, upwardly mobile base now in need of those services.

Thats the argument, hwoever our trade balances with these countries have done nothing but deteriorated. In actuality wealth is transferred. A small group benefits but the majority do not.

The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Put a 500% tariff on foreign goods.

Troy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I've lived long enough to see the rotation of "Made in Japan", "Made in Taiwan", "Made in China", "Made in Viet Nam", "Made in India", "Made in Mexico"...and it's lead to a global lift of people out of poverty, which, besides creating a significantly overall better quality of life for huge swaths of the people of the world

While that's good for everyone else.. How exactly is that creating a better quality of life for the people still living here?

It's really not a matter of "...the people still living here?", or there, or anywhere for that matter. And understand, I'm not being cold to the plight of people affected by this, but this is the nature of capitalism. Money seeks opportunity and companies seek the best return for their shareholders, period. Labor, particularly low skilled, is being exported by every country...lots of European and Asian auto makers down in Mexico!...or is being replaced through technology. I'm sure in upcoming years we'll hear about those factories currently being built in Mexico becoming more and more automated and the Mexican workers being laid off.
So a bit more directly to your point, as I mentioned in my previous point, the exportation of jobs creates wealth in a country that usually is in dire need of it...hence the abundance of cheap labor...and that creates a middle class with money to spend, and an opportunity to sell into with our products and services. That means jobs and services here, selling over there. That means less expensive goods available here. That means opportunity in higher paying fields over here, i.e. lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects that can now market their expertise to this growing economy created by the growth/establishment of a healthy, upwardly mobile base now in need of those services.

Thats the argument, hwoever our trade balances with these countries have done nothing but deteriorated. In actuality wealth is transferred. A small group benefits but the majority do not.

The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Put a 500% tariff on foreign goods.

With a punitive 500% tariff on the imports they are now too expensive for US workers to afford, US labor is still expensive (because that's a matter of labor laws), other countries put a tariff on our exports in retaliation so we sell less US made goods so the economy goes into recession and the factory workers get laid off anyway.

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

This is how we begin down the path to Bender being built.

Can you buy a ford focus, with food stamps ?

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

Bangladesh is going to have to go through their own version of the Industrial Revolution just like everybody else. There's no magic solution that instantly gives you economic prosperity. It takes time, the Bangladeshi factories are better than no jobs and no factories and they'll turn into better jobs and better factories, that's what history has shown us to be the result.

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

Had? When I was in Cali I could have walked you to many a sweatshop. I know they have them in Texas as well.

Troy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

Had? When I was in Cali I could have walked you to many a sweatshop. I know they have them in Texas as well.

The point, relative to the discussion, stands. Also, what we have in the US called "sweatshops", not really comparable to a Bangladesh sweatshop. No, not even remotely comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Can you buy a ford focus, with food stamps ?

Nor can you raise a family or have a life holding on to the paradigm of the past.
The workforce demand in the West is not one friendly to unskilled/low skilled/uneducated labor any more and that's not going to change. If anything, the clock on unskilled/low skilled labor's day, around the world, is ticking. Automation is going to...is already...levelling that playing field. A lean, heavily automated factory can compete from anywhere, so this argument is going to soon become irrelevant. What will remain the focus, though, is that the workforce can no longer expect to be relevant if it is unskilled/low skilled/uneducated. Those days are gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD, PLEASE READ THIS POST.

I must absolutely recommend you pick up and read 'Factory Man' by Beth Macy. It is about John Basset III, of Basset Furniture and how the Basset Family took on the pressures of globalization. I truly cannot recommend this book strongly enough. It's a fairly quick read and touches on the history and growth of the business from the turn of the last century and everything in between, to his fighting Chinese competition knocking off his furniture designs and how he and the company address it. This book should be mandatory reading for every American. Seriously.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PICK UP THIS BOOK!

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Troy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

Had? When I was in Cali I could have walked you to many a sweatshop. I know they have them in Texas as well.

The point, relative to the discussion, stands. Also, what we have in the US called "sweatshops", not really comparable to a Bangladesh sweatshop. No, not even remotely comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Can you buy a ford focus, with food stamps ?

The workforce demand in the West is not one friendly to unskilled/low skilled/uneducated labor any more and that's not going to change. If anything, the clock on unskilled/low skilled labor's day, around the world, is ticking. Automation is going to...is already...levelling that playing field. A lean, heavily automated factory can compete from anywhere, so this argument is going to soon become irrelevant. What will remain the focus, though, is that the workforce can no longer expect to be relevant if it is unskilled/low skilled/uneducated. Those days are gone.

If you export american jobs. you export your customers income.
You are diminishing your home market. People without income can't buy cars or anything.
You reduce tax revenue to the government, which hinders their ability to supply services too you.
You have to pay more tax to make up for people unable to pay.
People want to buy locally made products. Look at some of the posts in this thread.
The alternative is Detroit

As for unskilled workers, assembling cars is unskilled ?

 loki old fart wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Troy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

Had? When I was in Cali I could have walked you to many a sweatshop. I know they have them in Texas as well.

The point, relative to the discussion, stands. Also, what we have in the US called "sweatshops", not really comparable to a Bangladesh sweatshop. No, not even remotely comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Can you buy a ford focus, with food stamps ?

The workforce demand in the West is not one friendly to unskilled/low skilled/uneducated labor any more and that's not going to change. If anything, the clock on unskilled/low skilled labor's day, around the world, is ticking. Automation is going to...is already...levelling that playing field. A lean, heavily automated factory can compete from anywhere, so this argument is going to soon become irrelevant. What will remain the focus, though, is that the workforce can no longer expect to be relevant if it is unskilled/low skilled/uneducated. Those days are gone.

If you export american jobs. you export your customers income.
You are diminishing your home market. People without income can't buy cars or anything.
You reduce tax revenue to the government, which hinders their ability to supply services too you.
You have to pay more tax to make up for people unable to pay.
People want to buy locally made products. Look at some of the posts in this thread.
The alternative is Detroit

As for unskilled workers, assembling cars is unskilled ?

Even if you don't export the jobs, the low skilled are still (unfortunately) screwed in the long term. Force the manufacturing into high labour cost countries and the economics of automation become even more appealing. There will be plenty of jobs for people that can design, build and manage the process, but the low complexity, non-people facing, jobs will disappear anyway. Cars, textiles, food, it's all going the same way. The only route out is to up skill the workforce (other than UBI, but that's another topic).

As for unskilled, perhaps low skilled is a better term, but the whole idea of production line assembly is to reduce the process to a series of actions that can be done by individuals quickly and with less training per person than a master craftsman who starts from a few chunks of basic material and produces an end product. If you need to staff an assembly line with master craftsmen , you're doing it wrong.

 loki old fart wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Troy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc. That would actually make more people worse off not better. Wages, benefits, taxes, all make labor more expensive (see Labor Burden and how it's calculated) but the trade off is that workers get better compensation so companies move jobs like assembly line work out of the US to countries where workers have fewer protections and lower costs. Eventually those countries start enacting worker protections and higher salary requirements because they want the benefits of a middle class. That's why factories got moved from China to Vietnam and Thailand because China wanted their workers to be better off to make their own economy better via a good middle class providing domestic spending. Companies move their factories following the lower costs of labor but leave workers better off in their wake. If we want a high labor burden and a high standard of living we pay the price of not having the capacity to employ a lot of unskilled/low skilled workers at a cost that is competitive globally.

Tell that to workers locked into sweatshops, in places like Bangladesh ETC. Hey guys don't worry you'll soon be middle class.

A look at history shows the US, UK, Europe...the "affluent" West...as all having had their sweatshop phase in their development. There's nothing new going on.

Had? When I was in Cali I could have walked you to many a sweatshop. I know they have them in Texas as well.

The point, relative to the discussion, stands. Also, what we have in the US called "sweatshops", not really comparable to a Bangladesh sweatshop. No, not even remotely comparable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Can you buy a ford focus, with food stamps ?

The workforce demand in the West is not one friendly to unskilled/low skilled/uneducated labor any more and that's not going to change. If anything, the clock on unskilled/low skilled labor's day, around the world, is ticking. Automation is going to...is already...levelling that playing field. A lean, heavily automated factory can compete from anywhere, so this argument is going to soon become irrelevant. What will remain the focus, though, is that the workforce can no longer expect to be relevant if it is unskilled/low skilled/uneducated. Those days are gone.

If you export american jobs. you export your customers income.
You are diminishing your home market. People without income can't buy cars or anything.
You reduce tax revenue to the government, which hinders their ability to supply services too you.
You have to pay more tax to make up for people unable to pay.
People want to buy locally made products. Look at some of the posts in this thread.
The alternative is Detroit

As for unskilled workers, assembling cars is unskilled ?

Please Re-read some of the posts that have already been put up in this thread. Every comment of yours has been addressed and answered. You're presenting your point as if it only has one dimension: "Job leaves and gaping, unfillable hole is left with no benefit." Too simplistic and just not true.

 Frazzled wrote:
You want to buy American? Buy a Honda or Nissan. The domestic (and by that I mean US) content is substantially higher and they are typically classed as "domestic" for origin purposes. My boy's Honda is over 90% domestic content when the Ford Taurus was just a hair over 50%.

Also Toyota, the Camry is a great car, I put over 350,000 on mine before it wound up breaking, would have kept going too; she never once failed to get me home even the weekend she died.

The Camry is made in Georgetown, KY the glass for it is from Bowling Green and other parts are molded at a plastics facility in Morehead.

Someone gave me grief about not buying 'American' and I said that there is no car more American than the Toyota Camry.

... Irony much?

I drive a Honda made within 2 hours drive of where I live. Not a single one of the Big 3 makes a car I can afford that is made in this province (if not country).

Ford: 'Hey America- up yours and thanks for the money!"

Hopefully with all the cheap mexican labor, their cars can be sold cheap enough for the unemployed ex-Ford workers to purchase.

Ford has stated that they are not shifting any jobs to Mexico. The same factory and workers will transition to building a different model. New jobs are added in Mexico and production of the small cars will be shifted there to be competitive in price, but the current jobs will remain here as well.

xraytango wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You want to buy American? Buy a Honda or Nissan. The domestic (and by that I mean US) content is substantially higher and they are typically classed as "domestic" for origin purposes. My boy's Honda is over 90% domestic content when the Ford Taurus was just a hair over 50%.

Also Toyota, the Camry is a great car, I put over 350,000 on mine before it wound up breaking, would have kept going too; she never once failed to get me home even the weekend she died.

The Camry is made in Georgetown, KY the glass for it is from Bowling Green and other parts are molded at a plastics facility in Morehead.

Someone gave me grief about not buying 'American' and I said that there is no car more American than the Toyota Camry.

... Irony much?

I want to tour that Kentucky plant sometime in the next year. A friend of mine toured one of the Toyota vendors in Japan and told me that they brought in kids of around 15 years of age and began an amazing training with them. They teach them how to run lathes and other manufacturing equipment as well as run a school for them, teaching them engineering principles. The vendor has an almost 0 turn over rate and really only loses people if someone retires or dies.

The plastics facility in Morehead has a partnership with the local vo-tech school's industrial electronics course.

It all kind of fits together.

Toyota seems to have a very good working environment with a lot of vestment given to the line workers.

UAW just can't get a foothold there, probably because it is far less a toxic environment than anywhere in Detroit.

Competitive pay, good benefits, ownership, and opportunity for advancement keep a lot of those employees happy and motivated.

 d-usa wrote:
Ford has stated that they are not shifting any jobs to Mexico. The same factory and workers will transition to building a different model. New jobs are added in Mexico and production of the small cars will be shifted there to be competitive in price, but the current jobs will remain here as well.

I was just scanning the thread to see if anyone has realized this yet.

Also, this is not news. Ford talked about doing this nearly a year ago and also explained that their investments in Mexico are for the global market (they're the largest exported of the Big Three). This is only news because Donald Trump, in complete seriousness, said, "They think they're going to get away with this and they fire all their employees in the United States and...move to Mexico," which in Trump fashion, is completely inaccurate.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Interesting global stats below from the World Bank on exactly this. Stats show comparison from 1960-2015, btw, US exports as %GDP rose during that period from 5% to 13%.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS

That was such a good post. Thankyou.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
None of that means gak when you watch your entire way of life get exported to another country. I've seen it up close and personal. Nothing says "this is gak" like trying to keep your dad from shooting himself because everything he did is gone, just gone and he'd been out of work for YEARs.

Here's the basic problem people have with change;
Lost your job in a car manufacturing plant when they relocate to another country? Trade is bad, and it's even causing people to kill themselves. OMG it's so fething terrible.
Get a job in a plane manufacturing plant. Assume you personally are awesome and hard working and deserving of everything that comes your way. Never for one second think about how that plant only employs thousands of people because it exports planes to every country on the planet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Wasn’t it Ford who made sure his workers made enough money to buy his products?

It was also Ford who believed that there was an international conspiracy of Jews controlling the planet.

The point is that just because a man is quite clever at revolutionizing industrial production, it doesn't make him a source of wisdom in all things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The only way you keep the factories in the US is to get the govt to artificially depress wages/compensation to the point that American labor costs the same as labor in Mexico, China, Vietnam etc.

No, that's wrong. The US and Mexico do not have the same productivity per worker hour. Education and skill, infrastructure, technology and structural factors all determine and define productivity.

In Tanzania right now you can employ workers for 12c an hour, and yet you don't see major automotive companies setting up shop there, because even at that cheap rate their productivity doesn't make the economic case viable.

What this means for the US is that domestic labour must be priced relative to its advantage in productivity. If labour is twice as productive as in Mexico, then labour in the US should be no more than twice as high. This gets complicated because the relative levels of productivity differ based on industry. With car manufacturing it's hard to be twice as productive, whereas in service sectors such insurance you you can be 30 times as productive at a minimum.

This has impacted the US economy in very regional ways. In areas where there was little to no productivity advantage, such as places built around car manufacturing, we've seen real economic losses. In other places built around services, they have benefited not just from cheaper imports but they've also gained access to much bigger markets for their products. So typically this has meant much wealthier cities, and economic decline in many small towns.

 Frazzled wrote:
Perot's great big sucking sound continues


http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/09/14/mexico-ford-shiftng-us-car-production-mexico/90355146/

I though all of Ford's small cars since the mid-1990's were made in Europe.


I learn something new everyday.

 loki old fart wrote:
If you export american jobs. you export your customers income.
You are diminishing your home market. People without income can't buy cars or anything.

No, not really. Consider you're a really big company, let's say you have revenues of $150 billion a year, and wages of $100 billion a year. That's about the size of Ford.

Let's say you move all your manufacturing to another country. Sales, corporate, advertising, all that stays where it is. So we'll say that $50 billion in wages is gone from the local economy. This would mean the market for your products would drop from $14,000 billion to $13,950 billion... or 0.036%. Its an utterly irrelevant reduction.

No company makes the whole of the market, and so no company can prop up domestic demand by itself.

tneva82 wrote:


That's how western economy system works. For one person to be rich many have to be poor. Until current economic system meets the inevitable end many people are doomed for poverty.

If people think unemployed in USA(or in other 1st world countries) have it hard they should remember they still have it fairly well because others have to be even worse for them to be have it as good as they have it...

Nope. Your first statement is an incorrect assertion. The logical conclusion of where you're coming from, I'd presume, holds the idea that humanity must be 'properly' controlled, where 'properly' is ironically the subject of the rich. This is a universal tragedy not unique with western civilization.

 kveldulf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


That's how western economy system works. For one person to be rich many have to be poor. Until current economic system meets the inevitable end many people are doomed for poverty.

If people think unemployed in USA(or in other 1st world countries) have it hard they should remember they still have it fairly well because others have to be even worse for them to be have it as good as they have it...

Nope. Your first statement is an incorrect assertion. The logical conclusion of where you're coming from, I'd presume, holds the idea that humanity must be 'properly' controlled, where 'properly' is ironically the subject of the rich. This is a universal tragedy not unique with western civilization.

There isn't wealth enough for everybody to be rich. Fact. Earth wouldn't survive that sort of exploition. Also western system encourages people of amasing wealth beyond what they need. You do know tiny % of people hold most of the money?

You are flat out wrong. Evidence speaks for itself. Year after year after year gap between rich and poor keeps getting bigger with poverty being still fact of life for most of the people. And if say poor in India and Africa were to be brought to same standard of living Earth would collapse instantly. It's too small planet with too little resources. And 1st world demand of those resources just keep INCREASING meaning even less is available elsewhere.

Be delusional if you want. Don't particularly care.

Good thing is though that this is not permanent because western system will eventually collapse to be replaced by something else. Which then will be eventually replaced by something else etc etc. At some time there's bound to be better systems as well. And no previous is not incorrect or opinion but undeniable fact. Life is change. Everything that comes to existance will eventually change into something else(ie die). You, me, countries(this btw is one big lie in the current western economic theory. It's based for example on idea countries cannot go bankrupt because they are infinite. Well newsflash. They aren't. Eventually country will vanish and take all the loans with it. Meanwhile economics are based on the idea countries are infinite and ergo dont' ever have to pay loans back completely...), economic systems. Nothing lasts forever.

tneva82 wrote:


There isn't wealth enough for everybody to be rich. Fact. Earth wouldn't survive that sort of exploition. Also western system encourages people of amasing wealth beyond what they need. You do know tiny % of people hold most of the money?

You are flat out wrong. Evidence speaks for itself. Year after year after year gap between rich and poor keeps getting bigger with poverty being still fact of life for most of the people. And if say poor in India and Africa were to be brought to same standard of living Earth would collapse instantly. It's too small planet with too little resources. And 1st world demand of those resources just keep INCREASING meaning even less is available elsewhere.

Be delusional if you want. Don't particularly care.

Good thing is though that this is not permanent because western system will eventually collapse to be replaced by something else. Which then will be eventually replaced by something else etc etc. At some time there's bound to be better systems as well. And no previous is not incorrect or opinion but undeniable fact. Life is change. Everything that comes to existance will eventually change into something else(ie die). You, me, countries(this btw is one big lie in the current western economic theory. It's based for example on idea countries cannot go bankrupt because they are infinite. Well newsflash. They aren't. Eventually country will vanish and take all the loans with it. Meanwhile economics are based on the idea countries are infinite and ergo dont' ever have to pay loans back completely...), economic systems. Nothing lasts forever.

Have you ever heard of the verse 'the poor will always be among you'? Whatever system anyone lives under, there will always be those who have more, and those who don't.

As far as resources go, that's a fancy narrative. I've heard it before though, and it seems like a great/convenient platform for fascism. It's backing though is rather dogmatic & myopic. It's nigh invoking a pseudo science as a philosophy. Then there's the matter of rights: No foreign power should restrict the wealth of others under such pretense. If the world goes up a degree, look at this way, that's the feeling of 500(?) million some people thriving.... living. The benefit to risk ratio is acceptable - if you value human life. We haven't even factored in migratory compensation - if people needed to move. Even if we hit a ceiling, the potential to solve for it is also there - outside of draconian intervention.

The disparity of the wealth gap is an amusing tune, as it somehow attempts to separate a problem that will never get solved, as anyone who tries to change its flow, become the very same problem they were attempting to mitigate. Money and power may go hand in hand at times, but power doesn't necessarily require money.

What does changes the hearts of the powerful is ministry and reason, not coercion and feel good machinations. The founders of my country also recognized this concept, that, in my own words: no matter how perfect a form government, it will only really thrive if the people are good (they believed that was christianity). Obviously they weren't too far off the nose, as the USA is the most powerful/wealthy country ever to have been in recorded history.

I don't think western Civ, or its sentiments, will ever leave the population of the world, unless some huge catastrophe were to occur.

tneva82 wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


That's how western economy system works. For one person to be rich many have to be poor. Until current economic system meets the inevitable end many people are doomed for poverty.

If people think unemployed in USA(or in other 1st world countries) have it hard they should remember they still have it fairly well because others have to be even worse for them to be have it as good as they have it...

Nope. Your first statement is an incorrect assertion. The logical conclusion of where you're coming from, I'd presume, holds the idea that humanity must be 'properly' controlled, where 'properly' is ironically the subject of the rich. This is a universal tragedy not unique with western civilization.

There isn't wealth enough for everybody to be rich. Fact. Earth wouldn't survive that sort of exploition. Also western system encourages people of amasing wealth beyond what they need. You do know tiny % of people hold most of the money?

.

Your perception of 'rich' and 'poor' is a bit skewed I think. To your textiles worker in Taiwan, I am rich. To me, a bloke who owns half a dozen houses here in the UK and lives off of them is effectively rich. To him, a company CEO making two million a year is rich. To him, one of those Russian oligarch billionaires is rich.

You are correct that there is only so much money around for a finite number of people to sit at the top end of that scale relative to the others. But at the bottom end? Not so much. Your problem is that you're envisioning wealth as a cake that stays one size and everyone can only ever fight over their size of a slice. The reality is more that there's only one cake, but it is possible to enlarge the cake. That's what capitalism has done. The amount of trade and physical wealth on the planet proportionately per person is far in excess of what existed a hundred or four hundred years ago. As long as the cake keeps getting bigger faster than more people need a slice, it is possible (whether it always happens or not) for everyone to get that little bit more of it. Sure, not everyone will be ridiculously well off and a billionaire (it would cease to mean anything if it happened). But the goal is to get the smallest possible slice of the cake anyone can get large enough, that it can support a decent quality of life.

 kveldulf wrote:
Obviously they weren't too far off the nose, as the USA is the most powerful/wealthy country ever to have been in recorded history.

I'm not sure this is quite accurate. Powerful... that's a hard word to quantify. Certainly militarily, but are we as "powerful" as, say, when England or Rome ruled a great proportion of the known world?

Easier to quantify would be wealth, and I don't think we've ever been the wealthiest country in history, per capita at least. Our GDP per capita is like half of Luxembourg or Norway, only a little more than a third of Qatar.