Graham I am in no way saying that all industry should leave the US. What i am pointing out is that natural economic and social changes have been occurring in the US for the past 50 years. Some of these changes prevent some products from being economically viable to be produced in the US.

No longer in the US can you get a job delivering milk in glass bottles to a persons door step and support a family. Today a Bachelors degree is almost the same worth as a HS diploma was 50 years ago. Blue collar jobs have been declining because of two major factors. One emerging global markets and industrial producers. Two greater influence and implementation of technology. Both of these effect the US. The rest of the world has also experienced reductions in Industrial workers. China has lost more of its workers than the US. The fact is a person needs to get a college degree and most likely continue to a graduate level in order to be productive in the modern society. The US is at the for front of this new age.

 

Yeah... they died in mining accidents or got shot trying to defend their family's land from emminent domain takeover.

NO WAY has China lost more jobs than America has (as a percentage of the population) - NO WAY.
I've lived there for 3 months this year alone and seen it first hand.
They might provide a statistic that says X-number of jobs were eliminated, but 3X or 5X more jobs were created by other companies moving lines there from America and Europe. The growth over there can't be explained with words that will make you feel it like being there. When is the last time you saw a Concrete truck with a load going to a job site at 2:00am on a Saturday night?!?! Concrete trucks are going 24-7 over there because of new plants, factories, apartment buildings, condos, dormitories, etc. Same with steel workers and carpenters. It's nuts.

A country can't report 8-10% growth year over year and not be adding jobs.
GDP can't double without adding jobs.


As for open trading, I disagree. When your trading partner is a lying, cheating theif who mistreats their own people... I recommend NOT trading with them any more than absolutely necessary. Opening the doors to free uncontrolled trade will only fertilize the corruption we know is already there - NOT eliminate it.

May as well agree to disagree and let this one go... I can not be convinced that MORE and less-restricted trading with unethical cultures is a good thing.
Demanding they start working on ecological issues and rights of humanity
should be paramount before any trade expansions should even be considered with an "under-developed" country.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say and it would apply to China were they a friend to the US, the problem is they are being "friendly" but they are not a friend.

The only reason China is being “friendly” to us is because they want access to our markets to sell the goods they make and they want, from us, the technology, knowledge and other industrial and financial capital they don’t yet have themselves. The only thing that has stopped them from simply invading is that they know we can destroy them with a nuclear strike (a power they have only in a limited capacity…at the moment).

Our trade with China is not defeating their communist ideas or form of government; quite the opposite in fact; it is propping it up…it is financing their government and military expansion that continues to increase. I predict that once China has the equivalent or better nuclear strength and ability to strike us as we do them that their “friendliness” will disappear and their true face will be seen.

Every cheap Chinese manufactured good bought at Wal-Mart only serves to hasten the time when they can threaten us openly and with little fear of any real retaliation.

China is not a friend…it is an enemy and an enemy needs to be defeated; not coddled.

What is sad is that so many people; especially in our government, either don’t realize that or refuse to care.

 

Its not like the US was not in the same position as China is now when we under went our industrial revolution. The fact that china is growing that fast and is becomeing prosporus should be a warning sign to the US. We need to be more competitive if we want to remain a global leader.

Shutting your doors to trade in order to protect internal interests is exactly what not to do. Look at how industrial isolationism lead to the militarzation of Germany almost 100 years ago.

"The fact of business is, since 2000, China has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S.
Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico). Only Italy has managed not to lose factory jobs since 2000"

-Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

 

Do you seriously believe that the millionaire jet set tree hungers are going to buy a cheap economy car? Seriously?

Check out the Hollywood celebs... they're all buying hybrids. And now with the Lexus GS Hybrid, they can have their luxury car and still feel like they're saving the planet.

 

How much of the WalMart crowd actually buy new cars?

They're more likely to buy a used 12 year old Chevy sedan.

 

i think the Walmart connection is a good start at understanding the US market. There is a lot of money to be made amongst the poorer buyers in the US. I think US industry has long overlooked this market and its effect as an entry point by low cost producers. This is the same mistake unlearned from the 70 and 80s Japanese invasion.

 

You should go to New England and check out all the empty furniture factories that moved to non-union Mississippi. Then go to Great Britain and check out all the empty furniture factories that moved to America for cheaper labor.

Point is that the process is nothing new.

 

You've posted this 3 or so times in this thread. ProudPony already addressed it, in a post just two above the one that I'm quoting.

Also, you reveal your bias when you say GM and Ford can't compete in the sub-$20k range, using that as your justification for the Hyundai. And by the way, how do you go from looking for a Solstice to a midsize Korean sedan? You roll your eyes b/c you "couldn't touch a Solstice for under $30k". For one thing, that isn't true (but you have to wait). For another, that is because the Solstice is a very desirable car right now. In other words, it is an area where GM is successful. You roll your eyes at it like GM is gouging you or something (when it is the dealers marking up prices). But anyway, that's getting off topic, so I'll stop...I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here.

 

I think flowmotion once again put it very simple. It is all a matter of economics and is no new problem. The British made every effort to not industrialize in order to protect its high paid and high skilled textile workers. They of course eventually lost out to industrialized factories.

Job markets expand and contract and there looks to be no way to save companies like Ford and Gm if they refuse to accept that change and evolve to the next level. i have brought up multiple times also that a lot of foreign cars are being produced in the US and a lot of GM products are being produced outside the US. This is a issue of labor costs. It is more expensive for GM to keep its old expensive unionized workforce than it is to move the whole factory to Mexico and hire new workers. On the same side Hyundai is willing to go to impoverished areas in the US and start up new factories in order to get cheap skilled labor. There is nothing stopping GM form doing the same.

I think if the government wished to curb outsourcing of jobs it could simply give businesses incentives not to outsource. Tax benefits are simple and very effective tools to bid for a companies business. If the US gov gave tax breaks to GM to start new factories in the US, I would think you would see it happen. GM is out to make money as any company should.

 

B4C it may seem weird that my two choices were a Sonata or a Solstice but thats what I wanted. To each his own. The Solstice is desirable but it is not a 27k car. Its a $20,000 car with low utility that is marked up on average 35%. I have not looked at the #s but I can say with fair certainty the Sonata is more successful and profitable than the Solstice.

The fact is I was willing to pay MSRP for the Solstice without any incentives and 3 year warranty over the Sonata. It wasnt till i found out dealers wouldnt sell the car for MSRP and acted like they were Ferraris with 4 bangers that I got turned off.

Hyundai on the other hand were more than willing to give me every reason to buy from them and offered IMO a better product.

The fact that I read about their US factory and was impressed by their overall operations and business sense led me to choose the Sonata. Its business plain and simple and GM failed to close the deal. I am not the only one that has been turned off by GMs products or practices. Hence the success of companies like Hyundai and the decline of those like Ford and GM

 

Correction: it was the DEALER who did not close the deal, much to GM's chagrin. GM cannot legally set the final selling price. When cars are hot, they sometimes get marked up by shortsighted dealers. GM can only discourage the practice (which they do). See also Ford GT, Corvette Z06, and so on. Since there is a waiting list of up to a year for the Solstice and Sky, I'd say they are pretty successful.

Comparing the Sonata to the Solstice in terms of sales is ridiculous. The Solstice is a low volume, niche market car; Sonata goes after one of the biggest markets in the world of autos. Apples and watermelons. As for one being a "better product", that is also absurd. Sure, the Sonata is the "better product" if back seat space and cargo capacity are on your list of requirements. The Solstice is vastly superior if handling, styling, open air motoring, and overall fun to drive are your more important criteria...

This is straying off topic, though, so...

 

Going to "impoverished areas" to get cheap skilled labor is a 2-edged sword... first of all, you don't typically find "skilled labor" in "impoverished areas". If you build a plant in hickville, you just get skilled people from "civilized, educated, socialized towns that typically have trade schools and tech schools" - they just commute for the job. The other aspect is that they go there for the cheap wages, and that's exactly what they offer - cheap wages and benefits packages. I know for a fact that many are now reducing their permanent F/T employees and going to contracted labor for the reduced wages, lack of benefits requirements, and the flexibility of hiring and firing as needed.

As for GM or Ford being able to do the same thing... there are things stopping them from doing the same thing. the UAW is one thing - they will camp on the doorstep of Gm or Ford no matter where they go because these are union shops. The second thing that GM and Ford can't escape from are the legacy costs... no matter where they go, they still owe hundreds of thousands of American people their retirement checks and benefits (and I for one applaud these companys for not skirting or screwing their retirees out of what they promised). Lastly would be there legal obligations and their existing capital structures... when you have 14 plants in the USA that are nearly idle or being shut down, it's pretty hard to justify spending the money to build a new plant 200 miles deeper into Hickville to try to reduce your labor cost by a few bucks. What would you do with these huge empty plants? How would you carry the capital on the books? The tooling? the equipment? Fact is, it would be nice to be a company based in a country where you don't HAVE to provide people with benefits or retirement... then you wouldn't have to live with legacy costs and such... you just tell the labor workers to screw themselves and fire them when the get too old to meet daily quotas.
Sounds like a better plan to me.

 

NODAMNDOUBT!!!!

For the first time in a long time - we agree 100% on something with no exemptions.

 

Isnt this also the way the US deals w/ other countries? Dont tell me the US genuinely cares about the economy of other countries. Bottomline is each country just looks after itself. Any opportunity to get advantage over another country via any means is being done. Its just that the US' military is powerful so they can just about do anything they want...even if it means trampling on a few soveriegn countries. I dont like what's happening w/ China either but what goes around comes around. Besides, I still think that more competition will ultimately benefit the consumers. Who knows, because of this, we might be able to buy a brand new camaro below 15k in the future